Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to questions, I wish to make a short statement. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on sub judice matters to allow full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol and to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historical troubles-related deaths. As before, reference to those cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but Members should not refer to the detail of cases, nor the names of those involved.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Veterans: Protection from Prosecution

Johnny Mercer: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on bringing forward legislative proposals to protect veterans from prosecution for actions taken during the troubles.

Stuart Anderson: What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on when legislative proposals will be brought forward against vexatious claims made regarding veterans who served in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: Before we begin, I would like to make some brief remarks regarding the upcoming anniversary of Bloody Sunday. This Sunday marks the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. The killing of 14 people on that day began what was the most brutal and tragic year of the troubles in terms of lives lost. I echo the words of the then Prime Minister David Cameron, who, following the publication of the Saville report in 2010, stood at this Dispatch Box and apologised on behalf of the British Government, describing the events of Bloody Sunday, rightly, as “unjustified and unjustifiable.” It is important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, but remember these difficult moments in our history, and come together to help build a better shared future for all the people of Northern Ireland. My thoughts this weekend will be with all those affected.
The Government collectively believe that any system for addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past must focus on delivering for those most impacted by the  troubles, including victims, survivors and veterans. We were very clear when publishing the Command Paper that we would engage intensively and widely with stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland parties, before introducing legislation, and that is what we have done and what we are doing. We are reflecting carefully on what we have heard, and we remain committed to addressing the issue through legislation.

Johnny Mercer: Does the Secretary of State agree that if he reflects carefully on the responses to his Command Paper and if he engages with the professionals who have worked on legacy over many years, there is a landing zone for victims and for veterans that will address the grievance industry that has been built up in Northern Ireland off the back of people’s horrendous experiences and will deliver a lasting legacy agreement so that Northern Ireland can move forward?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with what he says. It is important that we find a way forward that works for the people of Northern Ireland and, as I say, delivers for victims, survivors and veterans; has a lasting ability to move things forward; and ensures that those who still do not know the truth and do not have information about what happened to loved ones will have a chance to get to that truth in a reasonable timeframe.

Stuart Anderson: As a veteran who served in Op Banner, I welcome any legislation that comes forward on this issue. While we wait for that legislation, will the Secretary of State work with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to ensure that any Op Banner veterans have the support they need?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are unequivocal in our commitment to deliver for all those most impacted by the troubles, including those who served so bravely to protect life and country for people in Northern Ireland. As part of that process, I assure my hon. Friend that we will work closely—and we are working closely—with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans; in fact, we will be meeting this afternoon.

Colum Eastwood: Can I welcome the Secretary of State’s words at the outset? Fifty years ago this week, the Parachute Regiment were sent to my city to murder 14 people—people who were unarmed, marching for civil rights—[Interruption.] And I would condemn that as well, as well the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) knows. Last weekend, Parachute Regiment flags were flown on the outskirts of Derry. The Parachute Regiment rightly condemned the flying of those flags as a grossly offensive act against the victims of Bloody Sunday, but they have yet to apologise for and condemn the actions of their soldiers on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972. Does the Secretary of State think they should?

Brandon Lewis: As I have outlined, as the Prime Minister said at the time and as I have said in responding to public inquiries recently, we as the Government must accept responsibility for what has happened in the past. When things are wrong, we need to be clear about that, as we have been. It is right that we have apologised for  that, and I have added my own personal apology to that of the Government. We also need to ensure that we all work together to find a way forward to ensure that people are clear that violence is not an answer to anything in Northern Ireland or elsewhere.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State rightly made his comments about Bloody Sunday at the beginning of his remarks, but he will recognise that it took nearly 40 years for the Saville inquiry to clear the innocent victims who were murdered that day and those who were injured. Will he confirm that under the proposals that he will bring to the House a judicial inquiry will still be possible? If not, we condemn victims and their families to the accusation of guilt when an inquiry would prove their innocence.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman gives a powerful example. Ballymurphy, which I spoke about at the Dispatch Box not that long ago, is another powerful example of it taking far too long in these situations for families to get answers and to get to the truth. I can be very clear with the House, as I have been before, that I am determined that the legislation we bring forward will allow families to get to the truth and understand what happened quicker than we have seen before. People should not be waiting decades for information.

Mike Penning: British soldiers like myself were sent to Northern Ireland to keep the peace, and to put their lives on the line for the peace of everybody in Northern Ireland. I say to the Secretary of State that, while I welcome the Command Paper, we must not have any delay in the functions of Government getting to a conclusion on this, so that veterans—many of them have passed away already—can live their lives in peace, rather than in fear of being dragged before the courts.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, from the point of view of veterans. He is absolutely right: most people who went out there served their country to protect life, in quite a contrast to the terrorists in Northern Ireland who went out every day to do harm. It is important that we deal with the issue, so that we do not leave it to another generation, and that we do so before we lose a generation who not only have information but deserve to live their final years in peace.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Every life lost in Northern Ireland matters, and we remember the two very courageous Royal Ulster Constabulary officers murdered in Londonderry 50 years ago tomorrow. As a proud former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, I want to ensure that whatever proposals the Government bring forward do not create a moral equivalence between the brave men and women who served in our armed forces and the police service and those who took the law into their own hands, engaged in acts of terrorism and sought to bring Northern Ireland to its knees. Will the Secretary of State be clear that there will be no moral equivalence between our armed forces and police and the terrorists of the IRA and other paramilitary groups?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can be very clear, and as a Government we are clear, that we will never accept any moral equivalence  between those who upheld the law in Northern Ireland—those who, as I say, went out every day to protect life and to do their service—and those who, from any point of view, went out every morning to destroy life and to destroy Northern Ireland. They must never be allowed to win, and there can be no moral equivalence.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: In bringing forward proposals on dealing with the legacy of our past, can the Secretary of State advise what discussions he has had with the representatives of innocent victims in Northern Ireland, and will he heed the very clear view, right across the community in Northern Ireland, from those innocent victims and their families that what they want out of the process is access to truth and justice? Justice must not be dispensed with.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As we have said from the beginning, it is important that we engage with a wide range of stakeholders. I have done that myself, as have my Ministers. Indeed, in the last week I have been meeting with the very groups that he refers to—victims groups as well as veterans. It is clear that people have waited far too long for information. We also have to be honest with people about what is achievable and the reality of what we can do, bearing in mind the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 that followed the Good Friday agreement, decommissioning and other things that have happened since then. We must deliver a process and a structure of investigations and information recovery that helps people to get to the truth, while being clear that, as I have said before, there are so many people who did so much to keep Northern Ireland safe.

Stability

Julian Smith: What steps his Department is taking to support stability in Northern Ireland.

Gavin Robinson: What steps his Department is taking to support stability in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: A stable Northern Ireland needs sustainable devolved institutions. We have progressed the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill to that end. Prosperity is another foundation stone of stability. We have been working with the Executive to deliver the city and growth deals, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), is taking forward, and to invest in priority areas such as skills through the new deal for Northern Ireland. We will continue to support stability and co-operation in Northern Ireland throughout this important election year.

Julian Smith: We are absolutely right to recall David Cameron’s apology in 2010, and I send my best wishes to the families and the people of Derry/Londonderry. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures in New Decade, New Approach to protect sustainability and to keep Stormont running will be put on the statute book at the earliest opportunity?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, absolutely. That is our focus, and we have been taking this through the House. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short while ago,  and no doubt he will be back here talking about it soon, taking this through is important for Northern Ireland and its people, who want a functioning Northern Ireland Executive.

Gavin Robinson: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) brought forward New Decade, New Approach with commitments within it that would guarantee and protect the stability of our institutions. The Secretary of State knows that the commitment to protect the UK’s internal market has not been delivered. He knows that some of the balanced commitments in that document are now being tinkered with, be they on legacy or on language. What steps will he take in the very short term to sincerely protect the institutions?

Brandon Lewis: On the cultural package, what we agreed to take forward is exactly what was agreed between the parties in New Decade, New Approach itself, and we will continue to look at that. It is important that we deliver on all of New Decade, New Approach. We have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is doing that work and has ensured that trade between GB and NI from the NI side is working in an unfettered way. We said we would bring forward further work to develop and deliver that, which we will do, but it is also important—this is why the work on the Northern Ireland protocol is so important—to ensure the same sort of effect in GB to NI as in NI to GB and that it is working for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend knows that the thuggery and criminality of the self-styled paramilitaries add nothing to stability anywhere in Northern Ireland. What further steps can his Department take to disrupt their activity, in particular through unexplained wealth orders?

Brandon Lewis: We have been making progress in this area. We work in partnership with and support the Northern Ireland Department of Justice in the devolved areas, as well as with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other partners, who are doing phenomenal work. We have seen real success this year, and in the crackdown over the past 12 to 18 months on criminal gangs. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee is right: these groups are criminal gangs and should be treated as such. They are nothing more than thugs who threaten people and try to destroy life in Northern Ireland. I support the PSNI and partners in their work to disrupt their activity and bring the people involved to justice.

Peter Kyle: I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s important words regarding Bloody Sunday. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) for skilfully negotiating the New Decade, New Approach in the first place. Part of that was legislation on identity, language and culture. When will that package of legislation be introduced?

Brandon Lewis: We are committed to bringing that forward within the mandate of the period for Stormont, as we said at the time, and that remains our commitment.

Peter Kyle: The statement to the House last June was that we would have it by October last year. There is a theme: we did not get that by October last year; legacy was promised by autumn, then by Christmas, and it is  still nowhere to be seen; and then the Secretary of State introduced double-jobbing to Parliament and, within the same week, withdrew it. A question constantly put to me by people in Northern Ireland is, “What’s the point of Brandon Lewis?” Perhaps he can tell us.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been over to Northern Ireland once and so is basing his comments on some odd conversation. I find what he just said a bit rich, bearing in mind that he is part of a Labour Front-Bench team who over the past six to nine months have called for us to bring forward dual mandates, then argued against them when we did what we said we would do. They called for us to engage widely on legacy and to take into account what people say; then they complain when we do exactly that. Labour argues that it is a party of the Union, but does not get involved in Northern Ireland and then cannot get its Front Benchers to confirm that it supports the Union for Northern Ireland on live TV. Until Labour decides that it is a party for the Union in Northern Ireland, I will not take any lessons.

Lindsay Hoyle: Come on, we have to get through these questions. I call Theresa Villiers.

Theresa Villiers: The Northern Ireland protocol is clearly causing political instability. Will the Secretary of State agree that it needs replacing, not just a few amendments?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The protocol is not working—that is clear. The feedback we get from businesses across Northern Ireland is that it is not sustainable in its current format. It needs to be dealt with. It needs to be fixed. That is what the Foreign Secretary and I are working on together to ensure we can do that and do well for the people of Northern Ireland.

Balance of Trade with Great Britain and the EU

Owen Thompson: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of trends in the balance of trade between Northern Ireland and (a) Great Britain and (b) the EU.

Joanna Cherry: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of trends in the balance of trade between Northern Ireland and (a) Great Britain and (b) the EU.

Brandon Lewis: We are committed to boosting trade in Northern Ireland with both the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. The Northern Ireland protocol has, as I just said, impacted businesses. It is creating barriers to trade and causing disruption. It is the Government’s priority to deal with those issues and make the protocol work better for business. That is essential to ensuring Northern Ireland continues to prosper as part of the Union.

Owen Thompson: Exports from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland have crashed by more than 20% since Brexit, costing the GB economy more than £3 billion. Meanwhile, Northern Irish exports to the Republic,  which are benefiting from still being in the EU market, have soared by 64% in 2021 alone. Does the Secretary of State recognise the overwhelming benefits of being in a market seven times the size of the UK market?

Brandon Lewis: We are seeing 200-plus businesses in Northern Ireland stopping delivering to customers in Northern Ireland, medicines and drugs having issues and challenges getting to Northern Ireland, consumers having reduced choice on the shelves, and garden centres unable to get the plants and seeds they want from the rest of the UK. That is a farcical situation. It is not sustainable. It is not fair or right for the people of Northern Ireland and it is right that we focus on correcting that.

Joanna Cherry: I wonder if I could invite the Secretary of State to actually answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). The most recent quarterly economic survey by the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce shows that 70% of Northern Ireland businesses believe that their unique trading position of being both within the UK and the EU single markets and the customs union presents opportunities for Northern Ireland. Does he agree with the vast majority of businesses in Northern Ireland? If so, why did his Government not fight for remain-voting Scotland to have the same benefits of dual access as Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: I meet businesses across Northern Ireland representing all sectors of Northern Ireland on a regular basis, as does the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). They are very clear: the protocol in its current format is not working. It is not sustainable. The EU offer is not good enough. They are very clear about that. That is something we are determined to fix. The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that if the protocol works in the way it was envisaged, it does create opportunities for Northern Ireland. The problem is that the EU’s requirements for implementation are failing Northern Ireland and we need to see that fixed.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State says the Northern Ireland protocol is not working and he is right. Why don’t we scrap it?

Brandon Lewis: The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I are absolutely determined to ensure that we resolve the issues for Northern Ireland. We would obviously like to do that in a sustainable and agreed way with the EU. That is the best way to get legal certainty. That is our focus, but we do not rule out anything from the table to deliver for Northern Ireland.

Gareth Bacon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reducing barriers to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is not just desirable, but vital to protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that consumers and businesses in any part of the UK can access products as they would anywhere else in the UK. That is what we are determined to deliver, and that is where our focus and work is.

Richard Thomson: I take this opportunity to associate my party with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Our thoughts are very much with those who continue to grieve and who continue to be affected to this day.
When it comes to trade, the Government have not so much been ambushed by cake as by reality. While the Northern Ireland economy is thriving as part of the single market, the economy of the UK is labouring. Should the UK Government not, with the opportunities presented by the possibility of a change in Prime Minister, realign Great Britain with Northern Ireland in the single market and allow businesses across these islands to flourish?

Brandon Lewis: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to do a little more research. It is very good news that the Northern Ireland economy is moving forward, as is the whole UK economy. Of course, in Northern Ireland there are more factors, not least the scale of the public sector compared with anywhere else in the UK. However, it is also true that the UK is moving forward as one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7, if not the fastest, with employment going up from where it was even before covid. That is because the Government are focused on delivering for people across the United Kingdom. I am sure he understands why, as a Unionist, I support that. He should too.

Platinum Jubilee Celebrations

Andrew Lewer: What plans his Department has to celebrate the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Antony Higginbotham: What plans his Department has to celebrate the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mike Wood: What plans his Department has to celebrate the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Andrew Rosindell: What plans his Department has to celebrate the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Conor Burns: May I briefly associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State on the dreadful events in the city of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) in 1972, the year of my birth in Belfast?
Officials in the Northern Ireland Office are working closely with officials in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the lead Government Department on the jubilee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend Lord Caine are working on a series of events in Northern Ireland to mark Her Majesty’s jubilee, her immense contribution to life in Northern Ireland and to peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

Andrew Lewer: Will the Minister describe how he will encourage all parts of the NHS across Northern Ireland to celebrate the platinum jubilee as one great, unifying feature of the Union towards another?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Everyone in every part of our United Kingdom is deeply proud of the national health service. People across Northern Ireland, whatever their allegiance, recognise the immense contribution of frontline NHS staff, whom I hope will be recognised in this jubilee year.

Antony Higginbotham: Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee is a fantastic opportunity to celebrate our Union far and wide, with people around the Commonwealth and the world joining us in marking the occasion. Will the Secretary of State set out the Government’s plans on using the jubilee to showcase the best of Northern Ireland?

Conor Burns: Whatever tradition or belief they come from in Northern Ireland, everyone recognises the immense contribution Her Majesty the Queen has made to  this United Kingdom. As I alluded to, Her Majesty’s contribution to reconciliation and mutual understanding on the island of Ireland has been beyond compare. This will be a fantastic opportunity to celebrate her amazing life and achievements.

Mike Wood: This summer, Her Majesty will award jubilee medals to members of the armed forces and emergency services and to prison officers. As things stand, frontline paramedics working for ambulance services will rightly be recognised, but those working in hospital A&E departments and private ambulances might not be. Will my right hon. Friend work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all frontline paramedics get the recognition their work so richly deserves?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, as ever. I am sure it will be heard. If it is not, I will make sure that it is by making it on his behalf to relevant Ministers.

Andrew Rosindell: As we begin the 70th year of Her Majesty’s reign, the Northern Ireland protocol still seems to threaten the free movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister take urgent action to stand up to the bureaucratic posturing of the European Union and ensure that oak tree saplings can be traded freely between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom for the platinum jubilee?

Conor Burns: I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes that point incredibly powerfully. Members from across the House will look forward to planting oak saplings in their constituencies to mark this amazing achievement of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. The Foreign Secretary is on the Front Bench. I know her well; I served with her in International Trade. She is on the case. There is absolutely no reason why oak tree saplings should not be planted in Northern Ireland as they are in every other part of the United Kingdom.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Queen’s Green Canopy is a wonderful way to both celebrate the jubilee and promote the environment. Tomorrow, in Dervock, Bushmills, Ballymoney and Ballymena, a number of primary schools will plant trees to mark Her Majesty’s jubilee. I encourage the Secretary of State, the Minister and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, who will be in  Northern Ireland tomorrow, to take the opportunity to visit one of those schools and encourage young people as they promote the environment, honour Her Majesty the Queen and encourage our country to look positively to its future.

Conor Burns: I entirely agree that all Members across the House will look forward to planting trees on the amazing anniversary of Her Majesty’s reign. I was in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency just before Christmas, at my grandfather’s former primary school in Armoy. The event is cross-community and cross-tradition, and we are all looking forward to celebrating it. I will happily accept an invitation, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would, to join the hon. Gentleman in his constituency and plant a tree.

Jamie Stone: As hon. Members on the Benches behind me know, my wife hails from County Armagh. There is a tremendous link between Scotland and Northern Ireland through music; recently, the Kiltearn Fiddlers from my constituency have played in Northern Ireland as the guests of Ulster University. Would it not be splendid if we could celebrate Her Majesty’s jubilee by having musical events the length and breadth of our United Kingdom?

Conor Burns: I totally agree, and what a wonderful, harmonious note on which to end Northern Ireland questions.

Ruth Jones: People in Newport West and across Northern Ireland know that Her Majesty has always led by example and demonstrated the highest standards in public life, so can the Minister confirm that this Government will be following her example as they mark her platinum jubilee?

Conor Burns: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that Her Majesty is an example to us all. The House should unite in thanking her for her decades of dedicated service to our country and the Commonwealth.

Engagement with Businesses: Northern Ireland  Protocol

Stephen Farry: What engagement the Government has had with Northern Ireland businesses on the Northern Ireland protocol since 1 January 2022.

Brandon Lewis: My engagement with the Northern Ireland business community is extensive. Just this week I have been in Northern Ireland engaging directly with businesses, as I do every week, to discuss the impacts of the protocol as well as any wider concerns or issues.

Stephen Farry: The Government published their Command Paper last July, the European Union published four papers last October, and I understand that the Government have tabled a revised legal text in the negotiations. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a desire among businesses in Northern Ireland for much greater transparency around the UK Government’s negotiating objectives?

Brandon Lewis: We have been very transparent and clear with businesses. The Minister for Europe and I, and indeed the Foreign Secretary, have met and engaged with businesses, as we will be doing tomorrow, and outlined exactly what our objectives are: to deliver what businesses in Northern Ireland want, which is to rectify the problems that are hampering businesses in Northern Ireland. We need to correct the protocol, and the EU needs to show some flexibility to make that work.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the shadow Minister for a final question.

Tonia Antoniazzi: When it comes to negotiations with the European Union, this Government told us that we could have our cake and eat it, but we face a harsh reality: a Prime Minister ambushed by cake while businesses in Northern Ireland are crying out for certainty. When will the Government finally bake off and deliver a veterinary agreement?

Brandon Lewis: I will ignore the cakeism directed from the Opposition Front Bench and just say that it is good to see the hon. Lady finally supporting the UK Government, which Labour has failed to do while we are focused on delivering for Northern Ireland, rectifying the protocol and fixing the problem. Get on board!

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Kate Osamor: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 January.

Boris Johnson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland remarked to the House earlier this morning, this Sunday marks a tragic day in our history, one of the darkest days of the troubles: the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. I echo his call to learn from the past, to reconcile and to build a shared, peaceful and prosperous future.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Kate Osamor: I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on Bloody Sunday.
Did the Prime Minister agree to the Chancellor of the Exchequer writing off £4.3 billion of fraud? That is £154 from every household in the country that went directly into the pockets of fraudsters.

Boris Johnson: No, of course not. We do not support fraudsters or those who steal from the public purse, but what I can tell the hon. Lady is that everybody  in this country should be very proud of the huge effort that was made by Lord Agnew and others to secure ventilators and personal protective equipment. At the time, Captain Hindsight and others were calling for us to go faster.

Craig Tracey: My local hospital, the George Eliot, has recently issued all of its staff, helpers and volunteers with a medal in recognition of the work that they have done and continue to do throughout the covid pandemic. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking them all for the incredible work they have done, including the specialist teams such as palliative care, who have had to act as surrogate families for patients whose relatives have been unable to attend because of restrictions? Will he consider following their lead in issuing a national service medal for all our key workers, who have done such an outstanding job in keeping our country going throughout the pandemic?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. I thank my hon. Friend, and I am pleased that so many of the volunteers and staff at George Eliot Hospital have been recognised in the Queen’s new year honours list. I have seen the medal that the hospital is proposing, and I think it is lovely. As I have told the House before, we are establishing a UK commission on covid commemoration to consider how we can commemorate everything that we have all been through, and the commission will also consider how we can recognise the courage of frontline workers.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in his comments in relation to Bloody Sunday.
The ministerial code says that:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.
Does the Prime Minister believe that applies to him?

Boris Johnson: Of course, but let me tell the House that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inviting a question about an investigation on which, as you know, Mr Speaker, I cannot comment, and on which he, as a lawyer, will know that I cannot comment. What I am focused on is delivering the fastest recovery from covid of any European economy, the fastest booster roll-out, and 400,000 more people on the payrolls now than there were before the pandemic began. We are launching a policy tomorrow. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about people being out of work—in my case, I understand why he wants it. We are launching a plan tomorrow to get half a million people off welfare and into work. It is a fantastic idea, and I hope he supports it.

Keir Starmer: I think the Prime Minister said yes, he agrees that the code does apply to him. Therefore, if he misled Parliament, he must resign.
On 1 December, the Prime Minister told this House from the Dispatch Box, in relation to parties during lockdown, that
“all guidance was followed completely in No. 10.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 909.]
He looks quizzical, but he said it. On 8 December, the Prime Minister told this House that
“I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party”.—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
Since he acknowledges that the ministerial code applies to him, will he now resign?

Boris Johnson: No. But since the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about covid restrictions, let me just remind the House and, indeed, the country that he has been relentlessly opportunistic throughout. He has flip-flopped from one side to the other. He would have kept us in lockdown in the summer. He would have taken us back into lockdown at Christmas. It is precisely because we did not listen to Captain Hindsight that we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and we have got all the big calls right.

Keir Starmer: This is the guy who said that, in hindsight, he now appreciates it was a party. We have discovered the real Captain Hindsight, have we not? Let me spell out the—[Interruption.] They shout now, but they are going to have to go out and defend some of this nonsense. Let me spell out the significance of yesterday’s developments. Sue Gray reported the matter to the police, having found evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence. Prime Minister, if you do not understand the significance of what happened yesterday, I really do despair. The police, having got that material from Sue Gray, subjected it to a test to decide whether to investigate. That test was whether it was the “most serious and flagrant” type of breach in the rules. The police spelled out what they meant by that: that those involved knew, or ought to have known, that what they were doing was an offence and that there was “little ambiguity” about the
“absence of any reasonable defence”.
Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This question will continue, and I will hear the question. Members might not believe this, but our constituents are very interested in the questions and the answers. If some Members do not wish to hear it, please leave quietly.

Keir Starmer: Having got the material from Sue Gray, the police had to take a decision as to whether what they had before them were the “most serious and flagrant” types of breaches of the rules—[Interruption.] If Members want to laugh at that, they can laugh. The police spelled out what they meant. They decided, from the material that they already had, that those involved knew, or ought to have known, that what they were doing was an offence, and that there was “little ambiguity” around the
“absence of any reasonable defence”.
Does the Prime Minister really not understand the damage his behaviour is doing to our country?

Boris Johnson: I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that, although the issue he raises is important, there is simply no way—as he knows, as a lawyer—that I can comment on the investigation that is currently taking place. He talks about the most serious issue before the public and the world today. It is  almost as though he was in ignorance of the fact that we have a crisis on the borders of Ukraine. I can tell him that in the Cabinet Room of this country, the UK Government are bringing the west together. Led by this Government and this Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary, we are bringing the west together to have the toughest possible package of sanctions to deter President Putin from what I think would be a reckless and catastrophic invasion. That is what this Government are doing. We are getting on with the job, and I think he needs to raise his game, frankly.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I say to both sides that our constituents are watching this. Tensions are running high, but we need to allow the people out there who are bothered about their futures to hear what is said on both sides. Please, let us give our constituents the respect they deserve.

Keir Starmer: This was the Prime Minister who went into hiding for five days because of these allegations. He should not talk to me about being around for the allegations—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not want to do this, but I am determined to make sure our constituents can hear. The next person that stops me hearing will not continue in this debate.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister’s continual defence is, “Wait for the Sue Gray report.” On 8 December, he told this House:
“I will place a copy of the…report in the Library of the House of Commons.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 374.]
His spokesperson has repeatedly stated that that means the full report—not parts of the report, not a summary of the report and not an edited copy—so can the Prime Minister confirm that he will publish the full Sue Gray report as he receives it?

Boris Johnson: What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that we have to leave the report to the independent investigator, as he knows. When I receive it, of course I will do exactly what I said. In the meantime, the people of this country want to hear what we are doing to tackle the issues that matter to all of us: fixing the cost of living; helping people across the country by lifting the living wage; helping people with their fuel costs, as this Government are doing; and cutting the tax of people on universal credit by £1,000. The party opposite is committed to abolishing universal credit. That is their policy.

Keir Starmer: Cutting the tax? [Laughter.]
The police say the evidence meets the test. Frankly, the public have made up their minds. They know the Prime Minister is not fit for the job. That is what really matters here. Throughout this scandal, the Tories have done immense damage to public trust. When the leader of the Scottish Conservatives said that the Prime Minister should resign, the Leader of the House called him “a lightweight”—English Conservatives publicly undermining  the Union by treating Scotland with utter disdain. How much damage are the Prime Minister and his Cabinet prepared to do to save his skin?

Boris Johnson: Well, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was offering yet more general criticism of what has been going on in Downing Street, so let me just remind the House of what has been going on in Downing Street. We have been prioritising the covid backlogs, investing massively in 9 million more scans, so that people get the treatment that they need and that they have been waiting for, and making sure that we have 44,000 more people in our—[Interruption.] They say it is rubbish, but they did not vote for it; they do not support it. We have 44,000 more people in our NHS now than in 2020, and we are fixing social care, which Governments have neglected for decades, with Labour doing absolutely nothing. They have no plan at all to fix the NHS or to fix social care. Vote Labour, wait longer.

Keir Starmer: The reality is that we now have the shameful spectacle of a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom being subject to a police investigation, unable to lead the country and incapable of doing the right thing. Every day his Cabinet fail to speak out, they become more and more complicit. What is utterly damning, despite the huff and puff, is that this is all happening when petrol prices, the weekly shop and energy bills are going through the roof. Three months ago, Labour suggested cutting VAT from energy bills. Still the Government have failed to act. Instead of getting on with their jobs, they are wheeled out to save his. Whatever he says in his statement later today or tomorrow will not change the facts. Is this not a Prime Minister and a Government who have shown nothing but contempt for the decency, honesty and respect that define this country?

Boris Johnson: No, we love this country and we are doing everything in our power to help this country. Of course he wants me out of the way. He does, and—I will not deny it—for all sorts of reasons many people may want me out of the way, but the reason he wants me out of the way is that he knows that this Government can be trusted to deliver, and we did. We delivered on Brexit. He voted 48 times to take this country back into the European Union. We delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, and we will deliver on our plan to unite and level up across the whole of the UK.
Crime down 10%, job vacancies at a record high, colossal investment—we are delivering, and Labour has no plan. Tech investment in this country is three times that in France, and twice as much as Germany. We have a vision for this country as the most prosperous and successful economy in Europe, because we are going to unite and level up. The problem with the Labour party today is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is lawyer, not a leader. That is the truth—

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I cannot hear what the Prime Minister has to say. He is the Prime Minister from the Government side, so I am surprised that that side does not want to listen to him, because I do.

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I only wanted to add the point that we have taken the tough decisions, we have got the big calls right and we are, and in particular I am, getting on with the job.

Simon Baynes: In Clwyd South, the Welsh Government have been dragging their feet on urgent repairs to the Newbridge Road, while in contrast the Prime Minister and his Government have delivered record levelling-up fund investment of £13.3 million along the Dee Valley, from the Trevor basin to Llangollen and Chirk, and on to Corwen. Will the Prime Minister comment on how the next phase of the levelling-up fund will bring hope and prosperity to other communities right across our proud Union of the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and what pleasure it gives me to address the Member for Clwyd South, where I tried unsuccessfully so many years ago. I am delighted that a Conservative Government are now investing so massively in levelling up in Clwyd South and across the whole of Wales.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about Bloody Sunday?
I am sure that you and the entire House will want to commemorate tomorrow Holocaust Memorial Day, when we remember the 6 million Jews who lost their lives at the hands of the regime of Hitler, and of course, we remember other genocides, not least more recently in Bosnia—we all pray for continued peace in that country.
At the heart of this matter, we have a Prime Minister who is being investigated by the police for breaking his own laws—it is absolutely unprecedented. This is a man who demeans the office of Prime Minister. This is the latest in a rap sheet that is already a mile long: illegally proroguing Parliament; misleading the House; decorating with dodgy cash; and partying while the public suffered. Every moment he stays, he is dragging out the agony for families who remind him of the sacrifices they made and dragging his party further through the dirt. The public know it, the House knows it, even his own MPs know it—when will the Prime Minister cop on and go?

Boris Johnson: I want to join the right hon. Gentleman and echo his sentiments about Holocaust Memorial Day, where I think he is completely right.
I must say that the right hon. Gentleman made the same point last week, and he was wrong then and he is wrong now. It is precisely because I enjoy co-operating with him so much, and with all his Scottish colleagues, that I have absolutely no intention of doing what he suggests.

Ian Blackford: Every moment that the Prime Minister lingers, every nick in this death by a thousand cuts, is sucking attention from the real issues facing the public; Tory cuts, Brexit and the soaring cost of living have pushed millions of families into poverty. The impending national insurance tax hike hangs like a guillotine, while they eat cake. This is nothing short of a crisis, and the only route out—the only route to restore public trust—is for the Prime Minister to go. How much longer will Tory MPs let this go on for? How much more damage are they willing to do? It is time to get this over with—show the Prime Minister the door!

Boris Johnson: I do not know who has been eating more cake. [Interruption.] People do not get this, but behind the scenes the right hon. Gentleman and I co-operate well, and I want to continue to do so.

Jesse Norman: As the Prime Minister will know from personal experience, the River Wye is one of the most beautiful rivers in Europe, yet its fragile ecosystem is being destroyed by phosphate and other pollution. The river crosses the border between England and Wales, but so far it is has proven impossible to get the Environment Agency, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales even to begin planning a single, integrated, long-term strategy to clean up the river. Will the Prime Minister now press those agencies, and the Welsh Government, at last to come to the table? Will he ask Ministers to look at the idea of a new, ringfenced national rivers recovery fund, using fines paid by the water companies, so that we can clean the Wye and other rivers up properly, once and for all?

Boris Johnson: I once had a memorable swim in the Wye—I think at about 5 o’clock in the morning—and it tasted like nectar. I understand the problems that my right hon. Friend raises: it is important that our beautiful rivers should be clean. My right hon. Friend the Environment Minister will visit the Wye area shortly, with or without his swimming trunks, and we are urging the Welsh Government to take the matter as seriously as this Government are.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Prime Minister will know that many families throughout the United Kingdom are struggling with the increased cost of living and rising energy costs, but in Northern Ireland that is compounded by the protocol. The cost of bringing goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland has increased by 27%—when we can get access to those goods. It is costing business £2.5 million every day, which is almost £1 billion a year. That is the cost of the protocol. The Prime Minister talks about uniting this nation and levelling up; he could do that by removing the Irish sea border and fully restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

Boris Johnson: I support passionately the right hon. Gentleman’s indignation. Yes, I never thought, when we negotiated, that it would mean 200 businesses would stop supplying Northern Ireland, foods being blocked and Christmas cards being surcharged. Frankly, the EU is implementing the protocol in an insane and pettifogging way. We need to sort it out and I completely support what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Philip Dunne: Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seen the report published earlier this month by the Environmental Audit Committee that makes recommendations about what else should be done, in addition to the welcome measures in the Environment Act 2021, to clean up all our rivers, including the River Wye? One recommendation was that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should give guidance to Ofwat to require water companies to invest much more in water treatment in the next round of capital spending approvals. Will my right hon.  Friend encourage his Secretary of State to give that guidance to Ofwat in the strategic policy statement that is expected shortly?

Boris Johnson: Yes, my right hon. Friend is completely right, and I welcome the report by his Committee. This Government are going further and faster than any other Government hitherto to protect and improve the health of our rivers and seas.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Happy unbirthday to him! Just like the Mad Hatter, the Prime Minister did not need the excuse of a birthday to have a party—but it did help, didn’t it? Given that he had groups of people singing  to him when gatherings indoors were illegal and communal singing was banned, my constituents think that he has lied. My constituents think that he lied to this House and my constituents think he lied to them when he was partying and telling them all—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You can say in passing what your constituents say, but you cannot continue to labour that one point.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: So, I would prefer to be led by a lawyer than by a liar. Will the Prime Minister now resign?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be withdrawing that last comment.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I withdraw it. That is what my constituents think, not my view.

Lindsay Hoyle: You are right to—we’ll have less of that.

Boris Johnson: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman, in everything he said just now, plainly does not know what he is talking about. What I can tell him and his constituents is that, irrespective of what they want to focus on—and I understand why they do—this Government are going to get on with the job and deliver for the people of this country.

Sheryll Murray: The great people of Cornwall voted in our Prime Minister on a promise to get Brexit done; he was successful. Faced with the global pandemic, our Prime Minister set out to build a world-beating vaccination programme to save lives; he was successful. He has now lifted covid restrictions against huge pressure not to do so, and he has got the economy back on track. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister continue to deliver on the priorities of my constituents and the millions across the country who voted for him in 2019?

Boris Johnson: I really cannot improve on that brilliant question. The people of South East Cornwall are lucky to have my hon. Friend as their representative, and she is right in what she says.

Jonathan Edwards: Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the murder of my constituent Mike O’Leary, whose body was desecrated in an attempt to cover up the crime. Will the Prime Minister meet campaigners and  me to discuss the need for a new offence or amended sentencing guidelines to reflect the extra suffering faced by the families of murdered victims whose bodies were concealed or desecrated?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Member for drawing this appalling case to the attention of the House. I can certainly assure him that he will be getting the meeting that he needs at the earliest opportunity.

Mike Penning: On 24 November, I asked the Prime Minister if he would meet me and my constituents to discuss the future—or lack of future—of a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead. When I secured this question today, I thought that I would have to ask the same question, but last night I was offered the meeting—So on another note, Prime Minister: many children in this country are suffering from a special form of seizure, and medical cannabis prescribed by a consultant helps them to live. Only two children in this country get that free on the NHS. The rest of those children’s families have to beg, borrow and scrape to try to pay for that prescription issued by a consultant. Will the Prime Minister please use the political will—I know that the Health Secretary has the political will—to push this matter forward so that these children live?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has the meeting he wanted. We have already changed the law to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis products where clinically appropriate, but we are very keen to support this, provided that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is happy as well.

Rushanara Ali: Threats and intimidation, bribery and blackmail, racism and Islamophobia: that is the character of the Prime Minister’s Government. Every day, the Prime Minister lurches from scandal to scandal. Meanwhile, his Government have written off £4.3 billion to fraudsters. Instead of writing off loans to fraudsters, why will the Prime Minister not write his resignation letter to the Queen?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady talks about racism and Islamophobia. She should look at this Government; look at the modern Conservative party. We are the party of hope and opportunity for people across this country, irrespective of race or religion. We do not care what religion people affirm. All we care about is whether they are interested in ideas of aspiration and opportunity; that is what we are about.

Andrew Selous: The recruitment of 20,000 police officers is a fantastic commitment to law and order by this Government. Bedfordshire, in common with many other police forces, has lost out on about 95 officers as a result of the imposition of damping in 2004. So that we do not have to rely on one-off special grants to stay solvent, will the Prime Minister recommit to the reformation of the police funding formula in this Parliament?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend the policing Minister has assured me that we will be introducing a new funding formula before the end of the Parliament, but I am pleased that Bedfordshire police have already recruited 100 additional officers as part of our uplift programme. That is part of the 11,000 more officers that this Government have put on the streets.

John McNally: Twice in recent months, I have asked the Prime Minister about his and his Transport Secretary’s commitment to delivering the Prime Minister’s pledge to invest in UK-built ZEBs—zero-emission buses. I did not receive a clear answer. Worrying reports in the media of Treasury cuts to bus-buying plans highlight a conflict between the Prime Minister and his Chancellor. Is the current Chancellor denying the current Prime Minister the right to fulfil his pledge to buy 4,000 zero-emission buses?

Boris Johnson: There has never in the history of this country been such a bonanza for buses. I am personally a bus fanatic. We are putting £5 billion into buses and cycling during this Parliament, and there is £355 million of new funding for zero-emission buses—and yes of course we want to see the benefits of that funding spread right across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Louie French: Securing extra health services at Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup is a key priority for local residents, as it is for me, as the first home-grown MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Will the Prime Minister support me in delivering this extra investment for our local hospital and join me in thanking all the staff at Queen Mary’s for their incredible efforts?

Boris Johnson: What a joy it is to welcome my hon. Friend to his place; the joy seems a bit confined on the Opposition Benches. I thank him for his work and support for everybody at Queen Mary’s Hospital, which he and I campaigned for, for many years. Last year Queen Mary’s received £800,000 of funding and I hope that it will benefit further from the £1 million funding awarded to Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust to improve technology services across its estate.

Richard Burgon: A nurse who organised a small socially distanced demonstration against this Government’s pay cuts was fined £10,000. People out there are sick to the back teeth of it being one rule for the Tories and another for everyone else. The Prime Minister, for once, needs to do the decent thing—for God’s sake, resign!

Boris Johnson: I do not think there was a question there. There was an invitation for me to do what of course the Labour party wants me to do, but I am not going to do it. We are going to carry on with our agenda of uniting and levelling up across the country, and they fundamentally know that they have no answer to that. We have a plan and a vision for this country; they have absolutely nothing to say, and that is the difference between our side and their side.

Rob Butler: Alongside the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine there are real fears of China invading Taiwan. On Sunday,  Beijing staged the largest incursion into Taiwan’s airspace since October. Does my right hon. Friend agree that military aggression and threat of occupation are never acceptable anywhere in the world, and will he confirm that under this Conservative Government the UK will always be at the forefront of standing up forcefully for freedom and democracy, security and stability?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. The Chinese military flights that have taken place near Taiwan in recent days are not conducive to peace and stability in the region. What we need is a peaceful and constructive dialogue by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. I know that that is what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and all colleagues are working for.

Economic Crime:  Planned Government Bill

Kevin Hollinrake: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the Government’s plans to bring forward an economic crime Bill.

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but, as I am sure he will appreciate, I am not going to speculate about the content of any future Queen’s Speech, which is the correct moment for the Government to be setting out their legislative agenda for the next parliamentary Session.
However, I can confirm that the Government remain committed to tackling economic crime, which is why my colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury take the lead on this. In recent years we have taken a number of actions, including creating the new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to economic crime and establishing the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision to improve oversight of anti-money laundering compliance in the legal and accountancy sectors. We delivered the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers including unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders. We are determined to go further to crack down on dirty money to protect our security and our prosperity. With the publication of the fraud strategy and second economic crime plan this year, we will further level up the response to crack down on crimes of this type.
My Department is playing its part. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020. In 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond to the consultation soon. Investment in new capabilities at Companies House is already under way, with £20 million being invested in this financial year and a further £63 million announced in the spending review. The draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. We are amending the Bill in line with the Committee’s recommendations, and in line with comments that the Prime Minister made to the House just yesterday. We will introduce the Bill and the broader reforms of Companies House when parliamentary time allows.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he knows, economic crime costs the people of this country £100 billion per annum, according to the National Crime Agency. The Government have committed themselves repeatedly to legislation to give our agencies the tools that they need to tackle this problem, and it was therefore concerning to hear from my noble Friend Lord Agnew—who recently resigned from his role as Minister responsible for countering fraud—that a decision had been made to drop the economic crime Bill from the legislation that is due in the next parliamentary Session.
This is not a notional white-collar offence; it affects real people in very tangible ways. Terrorists and drug dealers depend on it to launder and legitimise their  money through UK banks, companies and properties. Up to 50% of moneys flowing through Russian laundromats, often used for tax avoidance, for stolen public funds and to launder moneys derived from organised crime, flow through UK shell companies. UK corporate structures were involved in arms deals which breached sanctions in Sudan. HSBC and NatWest have been fined hundreds of millions of pounds for allowing criminals and Mexican drug cartels to launder their money through accounts held at their banks. An estimated £5 billion or so of taxpayers’ money, in the form of bounce back loans, has been taken fraudulently because some banks have not applied the most basic of checks. Criminals, despots and terrorists involved in people trafficking, illegal immigration, drug dealing, extortion, kleptocracy, the impoverishment of nations, and fraud—including what is taken directly from the public purse, to the tune of £30 billion per annum—are all facilitated by some of the lax rules that we have in this country.
The Government have promised to tackle this issue—as my hon. Friend the Minister has said—by means of Companies House reform; to fund regulation by applying a small surcharge to the current cost of establishing a company in the UK so that we can close down those shell companies and trusts; and to introduce a register of overseas entities to reveal the real beneficial owners of UK property, and a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime so that, for example, banks can be properly held to account for granting those fraudulent bounce back loans.
All this, plus more resources for our agencies and new whistleblower protections, will boost this country’s reputation, tackle crime, and help to reduce our tax burden. Every Minister I have spoken to wants us to do this. The Treasury Committee wants us to do it, all our crime agencies want us to do it, and campaigners want us to do it. I urge the Government to introduce the legislation as soon as possible.

Paul Scully: Let me first acknowledge my hon. Friend’s work on Companies House reform, on whistleblowing, and on general economic crime. He really has a handle on this issue, and his thoughts are always well received.
My hon. Friend is right to say that economic crimes are a significant cost to the economy. It should also be borne in mind that there are victims at the end of these crimes, and that they experience significant distress. We also recognise the national security implications of allowing dirty money from overseas into our financial system. We acknowledge the need for action on economic crime, and the Government have acted. My colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury have begun reforms to the suspicious activity reporting regime, created the National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, and reviewed our money laundering regulations and supervisory regime. That review will produce a report by June 2022. We are legislating for the economic crime levy in the current Finance (No. 2) Bill. We are committed to building a framework that will deter such crimes from happening and to providing a framework that will ensure that those who commit such crimes can be held to account.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his urgent question today.
At the beginning of the pandemic, there was widespread recognition of the urgent need to get money out to support businesses as soon as possible, but what made Lord Agnew’s resignation statement this week so alarming was his criticism of how the Government are handling cases of fraud now we know about them, and the news that the Government may no longer be intending to bring forward an economic crime Bill.
Lord Agnew described the performance of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as “nothing less than woeful”, and added that it has
“been assisted by the Treasury, which appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]
To be honest, it is one of the few times in this Parliament that the two Departments have been consistent with each other. These are very serious allegations for a serving Minister to make, and I am worried by what the Minister has just had to say about the economic crime Bill, so let me ask him however about the Government’s intentions in his area and whether its commitments still apply.
First, is it still Government policy to legislate for a register of beneficial ownership of property in the UK, so that we can find out who really owns property in this country? Secondly, will the Government still legislate to prevent abuses of Scottish limited partnerships? Thirdly, will the Government still legislate to prevent the shortcomings in the unexplained wealth order regime highlighted by the recent case in the High Court of NCA v. Baker and others? Fourthly, will the Government still reform Companies House? If the register of British companies was more rigorously checked and policed, there would not have been as many fraudulent companies as there were to engage in fraud when the crisis began. Finally, can the Minister confirm that his Department’s latest estimate of the value of fraudulent bounce back loans is £4.9 billion, and that it is the Department’s intention to write off £4.3 billion of that?
This sorry episode reveals a Government far too casual with wasting taxpayers’ money, but there is also an aspect to economic crime that relates to the probity and integrity of our financial and political systems. I hope the Minister can provide me, and the House, with some much needed reassurance today.

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Our appetite for tackling economic crime remains undiminished, as it does with Companies House reform, which has been well trailed and well considered. We will continue to work in this area, but I cannot pre-empt what Her Majesty will say in the Queen’s Speech.
In terms of the bounce back loans, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), made it clear in the House that HMRC did not produce the figure of £4.3 billion, and the money has not been written off. The figure was an inference by journalists, who subtracted £1.5 billion—the estimate of the amount to be recovered by taxpayer protection—from the £5.8 billion that was estimated as error and fraud in 2020-21. It was publicised before Christmas. Our Department continues to work with our  fraud measures with partners in Government, the British Business Bank and all the partner banks who issued this money in the first place.

John Penrose: I appreciate that the Minister cannot be tempted to comment on what might or might not be in the Queen’s Speech, but based on what Lord Agnew said, if it were to be true, I please urge the Minister to consider that it will be about as popular as a cup of cold sick with anyone out there who is concerned about the fight against corruption or the fight for transparency. The well of excuses after three or four years of promising this piece of legislation or its related pieces has now run dry. This legislation is essential for the credibility of this country and this Government, particularly when we have a crisis in Ukraine and all sorts of Russian oligarchs waiting to move money into this country if they can, and when there are fundamental questions, as we heard in Prime Minister’s questions, about Westminster today. It is essential that we do not back away from this central piece of legislation, which is a touchstone issue for many stakeholders out there.

Paul Scully: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s work in tackling corruption and encouraging further transparency, which we have had several conversations about. We remain undiminished in our approach to tackling economic crime, for the reasons that he has given, and to Companies House reform, too. We will work with the Home Office and the Treasury to make sure we can get these measures in place as soon as possible.

Alison Thewliss: “Lamentable”, “woeful”, “arrogance, indolence and ignorance” were just some of the words that Lord Agnew used to describe the Government’s action on economic crime. In resigning at the Dispatch Box in the Lords, he has shown a lot more courage than anybody on the Front Bench in this place.
Some £4.3 billion was lost in the covid schemes and as-yet-unknown sums were lost in Government-backed loan schemes to crooks and fraudsters, while some in this country got no support. For example, it was deemed too difficult to redress support for parents in the self-employment income support scheme. Lord Agnew also said that it was a foolish decision to kill off the economic crime Bill, and given the evidence that I have heard at the Treasury Committee during our inquiry on it, I wholeheartedly agree.
Many cases of economic crime could be halted if the Government tightened up Companies House, because reform is well overdue. They have huge volumes of evidence on that. There is no verification, it costs only a tiny sum to set up a company and the information on the Companies House register is—politely—utter guff. If the Minister looks at Graham Barrow’s account on Twitter, he will see some of the absolute nonsense that is entered on to the Companies House register and somehow accepted. All that has led to an open door through which crooks and fraudsters have been allowed to waltz off with public money and Government-backed loans. UK corporate structures, such as Scottish limited partnerships, allow that to happen—and have done for years.
When, on what date, will we see an economic crime Bill? When, on what date, will we see the registration of overseas entities Bill, for which I sat on the Joint Committee  years ago and on which the Government have failed to act? Why are the Government so unconcerned that the UK is deemed Londongrad and notorious for the laundering of dirty money? Who benefits from that—is it Tory donors and their pals?

Paul Scully: I think the last comment is beneath the debate. The hon. Lady talks about Companies House reform. Clearly, a lot of work is already happening in Companies House and it supports law enforcement on hundreds of cases each month. We want to get the balance right to ensure that new entrepreneurs can set up businesses through Companies House easily and affordably. There is much more reform to be done, however, which is why our appetite remains undiminished. She talked about Lord Agnew, who I thank for his work on this area. I worked closely with him to put measures in place to tackle fraud in bounce back loans and other areas of Government. He was a great servant of the Government and I regret the fact that he has gone.

Andrew Mitchell: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on raising the matter? I point out to the Minister that, over the last 10 years, the Government have made a lot of progress on this area but many hon. Members have put a lot of time and effort into working across the House to try to advance what is an important British agenda, not least at the G8 under David Cameron’s leadership. Companies House remains a good library, but it does not have investigatory powers, and it is there that we want progress to be made. Will he agree to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others who are concerned about progress in that area, together with those who run Companies House, to see whether we can make some progress?

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting and important points. I will ask the relevant Minister, likely Lord Callanan from the other place, to meet him, but I am happy to meet him either way.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry—the Minister is a nice chap—but we have been calling for this Bill for ages and ages. Time after time, Ministers come back to the House to say, “Yes, there’s going to be a public register of beneficial ownership,” but it still has not happened. They say they will do it in the overseas territories, but it still has not happened. They say that they will stop giving out golden visas to Russians with dodgy money coming into the UK, but it still has not happened. We in this country are a soft touch. If we want to send a strong message to Russia, particularly at the moment, we have to move swiftly and not say, “Oh, I can’t possibly comment on what legislation we might be thinking of in the future.”

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that—it was a shame he did not stop at his first sentence, but it was very kind of him. I appreciate all of those measures that he wants to put in place and, as I say, we remain undiminished on that. In the meantime, we have sanctions to tackle corruption from other countries. We already have very robust procedures in place, but we know we need to go further. That is why these measures will come, but I cannot pre-empt Her Majesty.

Robert Buckland: I associate myself with the remarks of praise for my noble Friend Lord Agnew, an outstanding Minister who asked searching questions of government at all times. It was a pleasure to work with him. May I press my hon. Friend about the work the Law Commission is undertaking on corporate criminal liability. It is due to present options early this year and I urge him, first, to use all expedition to get on with the job of legislating on economic crime and, secondly, to incorporate what I hope will be sensible recommendations from the Law Commission so that we can get corporate criminal liability in this country right? At the moment, the law is just not working and action is needed.

Paul Scully: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work in this area as well. Because there has been no consensus, it is important that the Law Commission looks at this matter, because we are dealing with a very technical crime and if we are going to get the answers to it right, we have to get this right first time. We will, absolutely, consider that report in its fullest when it comes to us.

Layla Moran: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this urgent question and thank him for backing my Bill, which would have brought in that register of beneficial interests. When I mentioned this to the Prime Minister just this week, he pointed to the Leader of the House and said it would be introduced as soon as possible, but now look what has happened: the vehicle we would have used to do that is gone. So I ask the Minister: how can he say that he is taking this seriously, given that this Government say one thing and do the complete opposite, do they not?

Paul Scully: I am afraid the hon. Lady is pre-empting the Queen’s Speech—Her Majesty will present this. There has been nothing pulled at all; Her Majesty will set out the Government’s programme in due course.

Mary Robinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton on securing this important urgent question. The National Crime Agency, using figures supplied by the national fraud indicator, estimates that up to £190 billion is lost to fraud, with £140 billion of that coming in the private sector and £40 billion coming in the public sector. That is a huge amount, which could be best invested in our economies. Does the Minister agree that we need to reward and protect whistleblowers who are at the forefront of this? We are talking about the informed insiders who bring these issues to light; more than 40% of this crime is uncovered by whistleblowers. Does he agree that the current legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, is not fit for purpose and needs to be looked at again, and that we need an office of the whistleblower, which would bring together all of these areas?

Paul Scully: I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank her for the work she does in this area. We have had a number of conversations and we will always look to see what more we can do to strengthen the whistleblowing framework in legislation. We do not necessarily agree on the end result, but, again, it is a complicated area   that we do want to get right, for the reasons she set out. I will continue to work with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.

Angela Eagle: While the Minister wrings his hands, London has become the jurisdiction of choice for dirty money. The levels of fraud are soaring upwards in the wrong direction. We have waited years and years for the open register of beneficial ownership of companies and it has not appeared, and we have waited years and years for corporate liability reform. How much longer do we have to wait? How much worse are this Government going to let fraud and money laundering get before they get off their collective backside and do something?

Paul Scully: What I am not going to do is pre-empt Her Majesty.

Matthew Hancock: May I associate myself with the remarks praising Lord Agnew, who has done great service in government? Will the Minister ensure that, at the same time as he develops this policy, we ensure that the UK is also home to new innovations such as fintech and the extraordinary growth of cryptocurrencies? Those innovations have the potential to disrupt finance just as social media has disrupted communications and online shopping has changed retail. Post Brexit, the UK has the chance to be the home of fintech, which not only can be an economic driver, but can help to cut fraud and financial crime because of the transparency it brings. Will he make sure that we get this right and that new legislation is fit for the future, so that Britain can be the home of this revolution?

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to get the legislation right, not only because we want to tackle economic crime, but because we do not want to stifle innovation and the investment in this country that makes us the highest receiver of foreign direct investment in Europe and one of the highest across the world. This is a great place to do business, to set up, grow and scale up.

Sammy Wilson: The whole House would love to believe the Minister’s words, as would Northern Ireland, where paramilitary money has been turned into a vast empire, especially along the border, and economic crime is rife. The evidence is not great, though, given the casual writing off of £4.3 billion-worth of bounce back loans; the fact that Companies House is in such chaos that people can avoid paying debts by going bankrupt one day and starting a company the next; the fact that in the middle of the Ukraine crisis we have threatened sanctions on Russia yet we are not taking action on the dirty money from Russia, which flows into London and props up the Putin regime; and the fact that the former fraud Minister said this week that the Treasury has little interest in or little knowledge of fraud. The evidence is not great for the assurances that the Government are serious about tackling fraud.

Paul Scully: As I said, the £4.3 billion figure cited is an inference by journalists; that money has not been written off by this Government. We are working with partners to ensure that we tackle the fraud that is clearly in the system, having given the money out at a crucial  stage in the pandemic to enable businesses to survive. On the phoenix companies that the right hon. Gentleman talked about, that is exactly why we introduced the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which tackles such directors, but there is clearly more that we need to do, and we will do it when parliamentary time allows.

Aaron Bell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and endorse everything he asked for. I know the Minister cannot anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but may I ask him to read the debate the House had on lawfare last Thursday, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, our hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), responded? Right now in our courts, in cases that are being investigated, litigants are outgunning the Serious Fraud Office. Oligarchs are basically waging lawfare in judicial review against our regulators and preventing these cases from being prosecuted properly. Will the Minister speak to our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice and make sure that any future legislation takes into account the threat of lawfare?

Paul Scully: I agree that the lawfare debate was incredibly interesting and enlightening. We will make sure that we work together across Government to take all those matters into consideration when drawing up future legislation.

Rushanara Ali: The former Minister Lord Agnew said that fraud in government is rampant—it is estimated to be approximately £30 billion a year—with a complete lack of focus on the cost to society or indeed the taxpayer, yet what we have heard so far from the Minister today is complacency. We need action now, because criminal fraud and money laundering are financing organised crime, drug trafficking, prostitution and much of society’s ills. The Minister needs to step up and get on with the job, legislate and go after the fraudsters who have stolen taxpayers’ money.

Paul Scully: The hon. Lady is right about tackling fraudsters. That is why our determination to introduce legislation in this area is undiminished. At the other end of the scale but still adding up to a lot of money, universal credit, as well as being more responsive to claimants, was itself an anti-fraud measure. One of Lord Agnew’s great qualities was his attention to detail—to the small acts that had big implications but were often missed. We will bring that learning to bear across government.

Chris Evans: The Department uses the National Investigation Service for frauds worth more than £100,000. The National Audit Office has reported that the service received 2,100 intelligence reports last year, but only 50 were investigated. The NAO has identified that as a lack of capacity, so rather than waiting for the Queen’s Speech, why does the Minister not speak to the Chancellor and ask for some extra funding for the service to pursue those frauds?

Paul Scully: We have invested in a number of schemes, including an investment in the National Investigation Service to boost its capacity to investigate cases of serious fraud, especially within the bounce back loan  scheme. It received £5 million in the 2020 spending review and made recoveries worth £3.1 million in 2021-22, exceeding its targets. It has investigations into bounce back loan frauds and other areas, and we will continue to work with it.

Mark Pawsey: I know that the Minister will agree that my constituents have the right to expect that victims of economic crime will get the same redress as for other crimes, including where the victims are taxpayers. He will also welcome the many comments that I have had from businesses in my constituency about the speed of the support that was made available to prevent failures. In respect of Government-backed loans during the pandemic, does he think it would be helpful for the British Business Bank to be required to release performance data on the lenders to provide transparency on banks’ activities at the time?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work throughout the pandemic. In his position as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, he has been asking probing questions. With the British Business Bank, we have tried to get the balance right between the transparency required to tackle the issue and the speed at which we can act, so that we are not consuming too much of its resources. It is early days in terms of fraud and recovery, but yes, data will become available.

Ben Bradshaw: How can the Minister reassure us when one of the reasons for the Government’s reluctance to act was highlighted in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russian interference in our democracy as the large amounts of Russian and other dirty money that flow into Conservative party coffers?

Paul Scully: I come back to this point: there is no reluctance to act. What I cannot do is pre-empt Her Majesty. Our appetite, as I say, remains undiminished. It is just a shame that the right hon. Gentleman hides behind Intelligence and Security Committee papers to throw political accusations when what we are trying to do is make sure that the taxpayers of this country get value for money and are not losing money, that the number of victims of economic crime is reduced and that they get their recoveries. Let us not make it a party political issue.

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill that online platforms such as Facebook should not be allowed to profit from the advertising of known frauds and scams? As part of the online safety regime, they should be required to proactively block and withdraw advertising that promotes known frauds and scams.

Paul Scully: We are really aware of the issues and we appreciate the comments in that report. As that Bill progresses, we will consider them with all due process.

Stephen Timms: The introduction of universal credit has led to a big increase in fraud. The current growth of economic crime and corruption poses an existential threat to financial services—one of our  biggest and most successful business sectors—and therefore to the UK economy as a whole. Does the Minister accept that effectively tackling this scourge urgently requires an economic crime Bill?

Paul Scully: I dispute the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about universal credit, but yes, tackling economic crime requires legislation. That is why we remain undiminished in our appetite to push this forward.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has very eloquently described the reason for and priority of bringing forward new legislation, but that opens the door to questions about the effectiveness of, and the force with which, existing legislation will be brought to bear on the key issue that Lord Agnew raised: fraud within the BBLS and CBILS during covid. We know from Lord Agnew that there were issues with fraudsters because of processes in the British Business Bank that were not up to scratch. We know from Lord Agnew that there were some banks—maybe two out of seven—where fraud was a priority.
The Minister has a choice to make. Will he come down on the fraudsters with a slap on the wrist or with a mighty hammer? I know which I would choose. What is he going to do?

Paul Scully: I suspect that we have the same choice, frankly, with that mighty hammer. But what we have to do first is make sure that we have those processes in place. The British Business Bank obviously had to scale up very quickly in the pandemic, but we are working with it and the banks, which are our first port of call in this, as it is a delegated scheme. We want to make sure that the worst-performing banks scale up to the best-performing banks in tackling this, and we will continue to work on that endeavour.

Andrew Slaughter: The lawfare debate, which the Minister described as “interesting”, identified how money launderers use UK courts to cover up unlawful activity, so the term that he has used is a slight underestimate. The Minister responding to that debate said:
“the Government are poised to act.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 603.]
Given that they have abandoned their economic crime Bill, given that the Attorney General is investigating malpractice at the Serious Fraud Office, which she is supposed to supervise, and given that too much oligarch money flows into the Tory party, how poised are they?

Paul Scully: Very.

Nigel Mills: May I ask the Minister just how bad the level of economic crime has to be before the Government bring the Bill forward? Can he also set out to the House how well worked our legislation is? Many of the proposals have been promised for years and years. I think he will find that there is quite a lot of support across the House to bring those measures forward piecemeal. We still have three months of this Session, so why wait for the Queen? Let us bring some forward and get on with them.

Paul Scully: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to get this right. It is a technical and complex issue, and we will continue to work with people who are experts and knowledgeable in this field to make sure that we can get that legislation totally in place so that we can push it through in good time.

Peter Grant: The Minister will be aware, and certainly his Treasury colleagues are aware, of the activities of Patrick McCreesh and Philip Nunn, of Blackmore Bond notoriety. Nearly five years after their dodgy and probably illegal sales tactics were first brought to the attention of regulators, those two are still allowed to continue in operation at the helm of a veritable spider’s web of companies, collecting scores of yellow cards, and some red cards, for breaches of statutory obligations. They are subject to no personal sanction, other than the occasional closure of one of the companies that they wanted to close down anyway. How much longer are we supposed to be satisfied with a regulator that, in one case, accepted the registration of a 10-year-old as a company officer? When are we going to have a regulator with teeth to drag dodgy directors out from hiding behind company nameplates in order for them to be held personally responsible, in a way that correctly reflects the fortunes that they have made and the financial misery they have inflicted on their victims?

Paul Scully: I know the hon. Gentleman has used that example on a number of occasions. It is a particularly pertinent example but, as I say, Companies House reform is foremost among our priorities and it will come as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Simon Fell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the urgent question.
From migrant boats to county lines, the golden thread that runs between them is illicit money flows. Although the national cyber-security strategy and the economic crime plan, and the measures in them, are welcome, what we really need is a Bill to bring this forward. May I urge my hon. Friend to use his good offices to make that case, in order to deal with not only some of the big issues but the low-level frauds that are affecting so many of our constituents? Let us not forget that it is the No. 1 crime in this country at the moment.

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area and those comments. He is absolutely right: the theme in this is economic crime—county lines and those kinds of things. That is why the Business Department, the Treasury and the Home Office are working together to get this right and to tackle all of that in the round.

Jonathan Edwards: Fraud is a traumatic experience, which makes reports that victims are having their details collated and sold on the dark web as part of a so-called “suckers list” extremely worrying. What can be done to protect victims from being targeted a second time, and will the Minister ensure that this is a particular focus of the Government’s work moving forward?

Paul Scully: First, we need to do lots of work on awareness of scams and those kinds of areas, which fall into my direct remit. Action Fraud is taking more and  more of a position here to support victims and—the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to this—to tackle the immediacy after the event and to make sure that it cannot happen again.

Mike Wood: Cyber-criminals prey on vulnerable people in all our communities. Yesterday’s launch of the very first cyber security strategy was an important step forward, but will my hon. Friend the Minister continue to work with Ministers on further measures that will strengthen the UK’s resistance to cyber-fraud?

Paul Scully: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the Government’s cyber strategy. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this area, which the Government are tackling. We will continue to do more as time allows and as we get more and more information. The legislation needs to be right for the 21st century. It needs to keep up with the areas—cyber, the dark web and so on—that criminals are using.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers so far, but after the recent resignation of Lord Agnew following a lack of consideration for an economic crime Bill, there have been many calls for that decision to be reconsidered or reviewed. The Bill was set to protect and better manage the UK’s economic prosperity. May I gently remind the Minister of the £26 million robbery of the Northern Bank in Northern Ireland by the IRA? Experts state that moneys have been laundered through legitimate businesses. Alongside that, there is the £396 million of fuel duty that has been lost to the Chancellor. Through an economic crime Bill, we can address the issues relating to the IRA’s illegal and murderous activities. Will the Minister confirm to the House that every action will be taken to ensure the Bill is introduced as soon as possible to take on those who live off the backs of others?

Paul Scully: I thank the hon. Member, as ever. He raises the really good point that not all economic crime is international. There is a lot of home-grown economic crime and he cites just one of a number of crimes happening in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Yes, we will ensure that we bring forward measures to this place to be scrutinised and pushed through as soon as possible.

Philip Dunne: Fraudsters, criminals and bad people take advantage of measures introduced in response to crises, whether financial or otherwise. This is an incredibly complex area. Every Member will have had constituents who have lost out one way or another through fraud over the years, so I hope the Minister will take the sentiments from across the House—I think every party in the House has spoken today—expressing concern about this issue and the delay that has come about. May I urge him to take two things into account? He says he is learning lessons. Will he learn the lessons from the response to the financial crisis, when our banks introduced measures that led to the virtual confiscation of, for example, more than 16,000 customers from the Global Restructuring Group within RBS? And can he please learn lessons to try to ensure proper corporate behaviour by lenders? Secondly, he mentions Action Fraud. The threshold for Action Fraud to  investigate, or urge the police to investigate in various forces, is incredibly high. As a consequence, while we all urge our constituents to make contact with Action Fraud, invariably nothing follows.

Paul Scully: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recognise those constraints, which is why we are looking at replacing Action Fraud with a new organisation based with City of London police to try to tackle the areas he raises. We will also learn the lessons. He is absolutely right. We want to get the balance right, so that we are confiscating the right amount of money from the right people—the criminals.

Points of Order

Johnny Mercer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Northern Ireland Office questions, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) made the extremely incendiary allegation that British troops went to his constituency in the ’70s with the express purpose of murdering the people who lived in Derry. We all have a responsibility in this place for the language we use. Legacy is extremely difficult to deal with. What guidance can you give me, Mr Speaker, so that when a Member repeatedly makes such claims—to generate whatever online presence he may have—that are clearly incendiary to people across the House and across the country, we can put a stop to that behaviour and behave in this place with the dignity that our offices demand?

Lindsay Hoyle: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. These are very sensitive issues and, as I set out in my opening remarks ahead of Northern Ireland questions, Members should exercise caution in referring to historical troubles-related deaths. In this case, the details of the case and the names of those involved have not been referred to and nothing disorderly has occurred, but Members’ views are now on the record. May I take this opportunity to remind the House that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language? Perhaps we can learn from this point of order.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will know, during the evacuation from Afghanistan many hon. Members were concerned about constituents who had loved ones stuck in Afghanistan. One issue that arose was how it came to be that Pen Farthing and Nowzad were allowed to evacuate animals while there were still people stuck in Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister said on 26 August that he had “no influence” on that particular case and nor would it be right. On 7 December, he was asked “Did you intervene to get Pen Farthing’s animals out?” He said, “No, that is complete nonsense.” And the Downing Street spokesperson said, “Neither the Prime Minister nor Mrs Johnson was involved.“ Yet today, as I think you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Foreign Affairs Committee has published a letter from Lord Goldsmith’s office saying,
“the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.
How can I get to the bottom of who is telling the truth?

Layla Moran: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Members will know how much correspondence we had on this. In the light of what is happening at the moment, people are very interested in the discrepancies between what the Prime Minister says to journalists versus what is revealed in this House. I seek your advice on how we can ensure that such discrepancies are clarified to Members of Parliament.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank both hon. Members for giving me notice of this point of order. Ministers themselves are responsible for their answers at the Dispatch Box.  However, they are encouraged to correct, as quickly as possible, inadvertently incorrect statements made to the House, if such a mistake has occurred. We know the Treasury Bench will have heard this and, if what has been stated is correct, I would expect them to come to the House to put it right.
I know that for both Members this will not be the end, and quite rightly they will use their best endeavours and the different resources available within the House to ensure this is looked into. I presume the Foreign Affairs Committee may wish to do so, too.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you and the House have been concerned about major Government announcements being leaked to the press. With the Sue Gray report, we think, about to be given to the Prime Minister, have you had assurances that the first that people will know about the report will be when this House has a statement? If the report is delivered on Thursday evening, will you ensure that there is a statement on Friday? The House is sitting on Friday to consider private Members’ Bills, and a statement might encourage more people to turn up.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not been given notice of the date or time of any statement. However, the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. As I have said repeatedly, I expect all statements to be made first to this House to allow Members to question Ministers properly. As we know, the Prime Minister has promised to make a statement.
I would expect that Members will be able to see the report, and I would hope time will be given for them to digest it. I have not had any indication of when it will be  coming, but I will work with the House to ensure that Members are aware of that statement. Hopefully, good notice will be given, but I am more than happy to suspend the sitting and leave it until later tonight if the report arrives. I am happy to work with the Leader of the House to ensure that the House is treated correctly, fairly and in the right manner. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that conversations between my office, the Leader of the House’s office and Downing Street are taking place in order to do the right thing by this House.

Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your direction in relation to the point of order from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Like him and others in this House, the DUP is deeply concerned by allegations made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), alleging that paratroopers left here to go and murder. However, he totally ignores the issue that at the same time 50 years ago two police officers were murdered by the IRA, which set out to do that. How can I make sure that there is balance in the comments in this House?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think you just did and, as balance goes, you far outweigh any other Member in all your contributions. However, you did name the constituency and the Member, so I presume that you gave notice to that Member.

Jim Shannon: I did not.

Lindsay Hoyle: When Members name a particular person or mention a constituency, please ensure that they are given notice. It is unfair if they do not know that they will be mentioned. You have been here long enough, and I am sure that you would like to speak to the relevant Member privately.

Spiking (Offence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Richard Graham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create an offence of administering or attempting to administer drugs or alcohol to a person without their consent; and for connected purposes.
The subject of my Bill today, spiking, is both an old and a new issue, and one that causes considerable anxiety among the young, particularly teenagers, and their parents. Although drinks have been spiked for a long time, and chemicals were first used to poison and kill a soviet dissident in this country almost 50 years ago, the term “spiking” is relatively new, and spiking drinks happens much more frequently than it did. The phenomenon of spiking by injection at social events is both new and still mysterious.
Let me start with the context, go on to what is known, highlight what is less well known, and then lay out what the Government, Parliament, local police forces and local authorities are already doing and might do. Lastly, I will suggest what more could be done by Government. Our aim in this House is, as always, to protect our young and reassure the public. We can also send a clear message to those who think that spiking is fun. It is not. Spiking has a deeply unpleasant impact on many lives, and it is a crime that should be punishable in its own right.
For the context, I am grateful to many people: my constituent Rosie Farmer and her daughter Maisy; my own young office; colleagues, especially the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and others here today with their own experiences and constituent cases; organisations in Gloucestershire; the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who is in her place, and her Committee and team; and Dawn Dines of “Stamp Out Spiking”, who has been on this case for a decade.
Spiking is not a far-away country of which we know little. It is happening all around us, and even to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) was spiked not long ago, as have been several other Members over time. Of course, many of us have children who have also been spiked. One colleague’s daughter was spiked twice in a nightclub. On both occasions, she collapsed and was carried outside by a bouncer and dumped unceremoniously on the pavement. We can all agree that that is not good enough, as would licensed victuallers associations around the country. There is much good practice to recommend, as I will go on to mention, but such incidents highlight both the grisly experience for a young woman and the frustrated feelings of her mother.
We can all relate to that, too, because where neither colleagues nor anyone in our or their immediate families have been spiked, our mailboxes tell us that our constituents have been. One colleague said:
“I know from my inbox that people of all ages and areas will be very pleased that this is being highlighted as it’s awful, can be embarrassing and is often very grim”.
She speaks for us all, as does another colleague, who wrote that
“speaking to police they find that most cases are young women with an unexpected response to drinks…I really worry about the fear that our young live under, and wonder whether this is another type of control of women.”
This not just about young women, although what data we have does suggest that in the vast majority of cases those affected are females. The worst spiking offender of all so far is Reynhard Sinaga—I am sorry to say, an Indonesian national—who was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years for using spiked drinks to sexually assault at least 48 males, many of whom did not know they had been assaulted until Mr Sinaga’s videos were discovered by the police. That confirms that there are male victims, and that there may be many more serious incidents, both on men and women, that we do not know about.
Colleagues from five parties are supporting my Bill today, and I hope the whole House will share my view that this is not a party political but an all-party and all-country issue on which reaching broad consensus inside and outside Parliament is the key to future success. We know already that there have been about 2,600 reported cases over the last five years and we suspect that that is the visible part of the iceberg, which means there is work to be done.
The last case in Manchester shows that there are laws that can be used to prosecute, and they have been used successfully in some cases. The two most relevant laws are the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which covers the use of noxious substances, and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which covers spiking for sexual gratification. They are, as it were, the two bookends of the issue, but much in between is not covered, especially where it is not clear or cannot be proved what the purpose of spiking was or where the drug used cannot be identified, including because its effects have already worn off.
Most importantly, because spiking itself is not a specific crime, no one can be arrested simply for the act of spiking itself, nor is there enough data on spiking for adequate analysis and response, and at the moment it is not mandatory for hospitals automatically to report suspected spiking incidents to the police, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on drugs confirmed to the Home Affairs Committee this morning. He and I, and I suspect all of us, would like that to change.
That is the context, those are the experiences and that is the gap in the law, which I think will surprise many of our constituents, and that is the main reason for making spiking a crime and therefore for proposing the Bill. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee recently said:
“There is not a specific criminal offence. If a drink is spiked or if an injection takes place, it is rolled into a different criminal offence.”
We need something more.
There is a conundrum about spiking to highlight. Spiking by injection is a relatively new phenomenon, but anecdotally, it is growing. Gloucestershire constabulary estimates that its usual historical number of reported spiking incidents of 10 to 12 cases a month rose to 48 in October, of which 10 were spiking by injection. That month coincided with the full reopening of universities, and I believe that is not a coincidence.
My constituent Maisy Farmer—I hope I will not do long-term damage to her reputation by describing her as a very sensible university student of criminology and policing—was behaving manically and completely out of character when recently returning home with friends from a nightclub in Worcester, and the next morning she found a needle mark on her arm that she suspected was evidence of having been spiked. Her mother, Rosie, contacted both her surgery and the Gloucester Royal Hospital A&E, but was told it was too late for tests. Maisy was signposted to sexual health services, which took some tests, and she received preventive inoculation against hepatitis B and HIV. The police, in turn, were very supportive, but without evidence of any substance in Maisy’s body or any known secondary offence, they could not do more. The point is that all these services reacted as they could and should, but if, as seems likely, spiking by needle had taken place, that is wrong and something must be done. The emotional stress alone is considerable. The question is what should be done.
If there is no evidence of a needle or substance and nothing on CCTV to follow up, it is difficult to know exactly what is happening. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said this morning that he is still confused by the prevalence of needle spiking without evidence; so, I believe, is the Policing Minister, who is in his place. However, that does not mean that nothing can be done—in fact, the opposite. Some of this is best done at a local level. The Gloucestershire police and crime commissioner’s recent successful safer streets fund award has partly been used to provide testing kits in nightclubs, which can be used by victims and others.
Then there is the question of immediate medical help. Gloucester City Council’s innovation of funding street medics means that immediate paramedic help is available.  The local police’s Operation Nightingale, including an increased police presence, may be responsible for a sharp drop in incidents in December. Pooling the best local practice of such examples will be part of what  the new national gold command incorporates in its recommendations to Ministers. I should mention that a drug often used in drink spiking, GHB, has been reclassified by the Government as a class B drug, meaning possession can result in a maximum five-year sentence. Last, but by no means least, is the work I referred to from the Home Affairs Committee. I hope that, should our constituents have more evidence to share, the Committee will welcome it, because we need all the possible light that we can shine, especially on spiking by needles.
Spiking is already a considerable issue and is getting worse. Spiking by injection needs more research and investigation. We could send a clear message today in support of the work of all local authorities and answer student groups from St Andrews to Truro, MPs from across the country, “Love Island” contestants and parents everywhere that we want to enlist in a more open partnership with communities by saying that we care and that we will do more. I hope the Bill will have the support of the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Richard Graham, Sir Robert Buckland, Siobhan Baillie, Wendy Chamberlain, Wera Hobhouse, Dr Rupa Huq, Cherilyn Mackrory, Mrs Maria Miller, Robbie Moore, Liz Saville Roberts, Jim Shannon and Valerie Vaz present the Bill.
Richard Graham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 238).

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Second Reading

Nigel Evans: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment.

Nadine Dorries: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time,
We are living in the digital age. It is not only our computers and smartphones; Brits young and old have an average of nine connected devices in their house, from smart speakers and TVs to baby monitors and doorbells. We are more connected than ever, and we need to make sure that those connections are fast and secure. The Bill will achieve both those aims. It will take our roll-out of gigabit broadband and 5G to the next level while boosting the protection of citizens across the UK.
If there is one thing we have learned from this pandemic, it is how central technology is to our everyday existence. We need technology to work remotely; we need it to reach our children and to drive scientific breakthroughs and business innovations; we need tech to be interoperable—I struggled to say that—because we are living in a world where our baby monitors, kettles and doorbells will all be able to talk to one another; and we need tech that is secure.
Underneath all that, we need the digital infrastructure to support all those connections—the ones that we make minute by minute, hour by hour and day after day. Such networks are vital for the UK’s future prosperity. We cannot stay at the heart of the global economy if our connections are not world class, which is why the Government have made huge investments in digital infrastructure.

Jonathan Edwards: Unfortunately, my constituency has one of the slowest broadband speeds in the UK. In one area in particular, Cilycwm, a WeFibre gigabit scheme has been sitting on the Department’s table for eight or nine months. Will the Department come to a determination quickly so that we can move forward with that scheme?

Nadine Dorries: I certainly will. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are moving forward at an absolutely rocketing pace, but I will have a look at the situation in his constituency. I assure him that nothing sits on the Department’s table—it has all gone out to the providers and those going through the procurement process—but I will check on where things are up to in his constituency. If he could contact me with some details after the debate, that would be helpful.
Because the Government have made huge investments, at least 97% of premises now have access to superfast broadband, which is fast enough for a family to stream five different Netflix films in five different rooms in the same house at the same time.

Rachel Hopkins: The Secretary of State has just talked about the ability to activate fast broadband in five different rooms, but constituents in   my Luton South constituency do not have five devices on which to watch five different Netflix films. Should the Government not be doing more on that basis?

Nadine Dorries: We are. The roll out of superfast broadband and gigabit broadband, in respect of which we have covered 65% of the country in just a few years, is levelling up in practice. It is about making sure that anybody who wants access can have it. We are working with Ofcom and the providers to look at left-behind areas in terms of levelling up and how we can increase access to laptops and—this happened particularly during the pandemic, in the first lockdown—how children in particular can access the internet so that they have the same equal access and opportunity as everyone else.
As we have upgraded our networks, we have invested more than £4 billion in our cyber defences since 2016, including by setting up the National Cyber Security Centre. As we all know, the nature of tech is incredibly fast-paced and constantly changing and growing. Monthly broadband usage has doubled since 2018 and continues to rise year on year. But the more we log on, the more open we are to cyber-threats, particularly as new technology—including cutting-edge consumer products such as smart baby monitors—is not always secure by design. To stay ahead of the game we need to keep investing in tomorrow’s networks and to secure ourselves against future threats, which is why we have introduced the Bill.
Let me explain the Bill’s impact in our telecoms networks before I turn to its measures on product security. In 2019, the Prime Minister promised voters a “broadband revolution” and vowed to deliver fast, secure and reliable broadband to everyone in the country. That was an important promise in 2019 but it is even more vital today as we build back from a devastating global pandemic.
We are delivering on our promise. Under this Government, nationwide gigabit coverage has jumped from just 11% at the end of 2019 to 65% today. We have set ambitious targets for the rest of the roll-out and aim to reach a minimum of 85% of homes by 2025 and to get as close to 100% as we can as soon as possible. We are constantly looking for ways to go further and faster with that roll-out. For example, we have already legislated to address the problem of absent or unresponsive landowners, who can hold up the deployment of gigabit broadband in blocks of flats, and we are currently consulting on proposals to amend the building regulations to ensure that all new homes have gigabit from the outset.
At the same time, we are working hard to improve our mobile phone networks, so that people can enjoy world-class connectivity not just when they are at home or work, but when they are out and about. We have agreed a £1 billion deal with the industry to roll out the shared rural network, which is already delivering improved 4G coverage across the UK. Both the operators and the industry remain confident that they will reach 95% of the country by the end of 2025, and we are aiming for the majority of the population to have the next level of cutting-edge 5G mobile coverage by 2027.

James Murray: Many of my constituents in Northolt are not able to access faster broadband through a fibre connection. I have repeatedly  pressed Openreach on this, and it admitted that one of its cabinets had not been upgraded as it did not meet the commercial criteria. Just last week, I also pressed Virgin Media, which said that it had installed broadband in on Islip Manor Road but not on Islip Manor estate, next door. Will the Secretary of State confirm when, under the Government’s plans, all my constituents in Northolt will be able to access a decent broadband connection?

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Member’s question is quite detailed, right down to street names, so I will take it away and we will speak to Openreach. The Department will see what we can do and come back to him, although that is not a promise that we will suddenly be able to connect Northolt. I am interested to hear about individual constituencies, because it is useful to us to know that information. We have not said that everybody is going to have superfast or gigabit broadband tomorrow; we have set dates by which to reach our targets. We will do our very best for the hon. Member, if he lets me know the details of the case he mentioned.
Things like 5G and gigabit have the potential to be truly transformational for people and businesses. They are vital for innovation, and can unlock huge economic and social benefits across every single corner of the country—not just driving our recovery from covid, but boosting our generational mission to level up the UK. We therefore need to ensure that the legal framework underpinning our digital infrastructure encourages and enables the deployment of the latest networks. In 2017, we made changes to that legal framework, implementing reforms to the electronic communications code that regulate installation agreements between landowners and telecoms operators.

Antony Higginbotham: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about ensuring that we have the infrastructure that we need for the 21st century, not the 20th century. But one of my constituents’ concerns—I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) have a similar concern—is that when private sector providers come in and install new equipment such as telegraph poles, dishes and things like that, if they do not properly engage with residents and the local community, that can blight some of our streets and add unnecessary infrastructure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we encourage providers to install such equipment, they should engage with communities and residents, so that we carry people with us?

Nadine Dorries: Community engagement and engagement with individual households is vital. People need to know that the connectivity is there. I will look into my hon. Friend’s point and take it further.

Ben Lake: In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), I have received a number of concerns from site providers in my rural constituency that have hosted telecommunications infrastructure, in some cases for a decade or more. When the code was last before the House, we were led to believe that the rent reductions would be minimal. However, it has transpired that in some instances, rent offers have been reduced by about 90%. I am interested to know whether the Secretary of State has any comments on that point, and whether there is a way of rebalancing  things. We want to ensure that this infrastructure is there to benefit the community, but we do not want site providers to have to sacrifice what is, in many cases, very valuable agricultural land.

Nadine Dorries: I am coming to the first point raised by the hon. Member. On his second point, which was about rebalancing, I am afraid that he is probably going to be disappointed.

John Redwood: I strongly welcome massive private-led investment in proper broadband, which is what we all need. Could the Secretary of State give guidance to the companies doing it that it is not helpful if they bury cables under main roads, requiring the roads to be dug up again every time they want to improve or mend a cable? Could we not do better, either in ducts or by the side of the road?

Nadine Dorries: An interesting point. I will certainly take that back to BDUK, Openreach and others. We need to ensure that the legal framework underpinning our digital infrastructure encourages and enables the deployment of the latest networks. In 2017, we made changes to that legal framework. Implementing reforms to the electronic communications code—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake)—requires installation agreements between landowners and telecom operators. The aim was to make it easier for digital networks to be installed, maintained and upgraded, and now we will go even further. The Bill will update the electronic communications code to deliver on the Government’s ambitions for digital connectivity and levelling up. Specifically, it will do three things: make the most of existing infrastructure; encourage stronger and more collaborative relationships between telecom operators and site providers; and build on previous measures to tackle the issue of non-responsive landowners.

Daisy Cooper: In my constituency of St Albans there is the Highfield Park Trust, run by a group of volunteers. Since the 2017 reforms, it has lost 98% of its income from hosting a mast because of the telecoms company using its new powers to renegotiate the lease. Does the Secretary of State agree that that poses a real risk to the roll-out of 5G, because in some instances small site owners might decide that it is not worth their while anymore and just evict the telecoms companies? Is she willing to look at the issue again, and at the power imbalance that has arisen from the 2017 reforms?

Nadine Dorries: In 2017, the prices were too high and they affected the overall roll-out. The new pricing regime is more closely aligned to those of utilities such as water, electricity and gas, which are fair. In order for us to roll out 5G to future-proof our digital economy and our telecoms, and to reach the targets of ensuring that we have 4G/5G coverage and 100% gigabit roll-out as soon as possible, we need to ensure that telecom providers can access land to establish both masts and the facilities that we need to make it happen. It has to be fair. We are not revisiting the code of 2017; the Bill does not do that. It will stay as it was, and there will not be a revision to the pricing regime. It is important that I make that clear straightaway.

Desmond Swayne: The Secretary of State highlighted that the prices were once too high. Now we have had multiple complaints that the prices are too low. Clearly, the question of valuation is at the heart of the matter, so why did the Government explicitly exclude valuation from the scope of the consultation that preceded the Bill?

Nadine Dorries: We have listened to landowners. We have not introduced the legislation without involving them in its development. We have included measures in the Bill that make it easier for landowners and operators to use a dispute resolution if landowners feel that they are not getting a fair price. That means greater collaboration, and it makes preposterously low offers less likely. Hopefully, a fair and reasonable price would be agreed. If landowners were not happy with it, it would go to independent arbitration. If they were then unhappy with that, they would have recourse to the courts, which we know would look very dimly on a situation where the telecom providers had been neither reasonable nor fair to landowners. We think that that is a fair and reasonable process.
Making the most of existing infrastructure can play a key role in upgrading services and increasing competition. Under the Bill, operators will have the automatic right to upgrade or share apparatus installed before the 2017 reforms. That will be subject to specific conditions to ensure that the work does not negatively impact landowners. The measures have been considered carefully to deliver significant benefits, while ensuring that there will be little impact on landowners. The Bill also rationalises the way that certain older code agreements are renewed so that they reflect the code as reformed in 2017. This means that there will be greater consistency in how agreements are renewed across the UK. On that basis, the 2017 coding agreements will not be revisited.
All those things will make much better use of existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new installations. That means less disruption with fewer street works and fewer mast installations in both rural and urban settings—something that, I am sure, will welcomed in all parts of the House. We will take away that community disruption. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I will take away his point about cables being laid under roads. In the area where I live, it is done under the pavement right outside my house. I would imagine that there is a good reason why that has to happen in some areas, but I will get back to him with what it is.
Secondly, we want to build stronger, more constructive relationships between network operators and potential site providers. We are introducing measures to make it easier for those two parties, when negotiating agreements to install telecoms apparatus, to use an alternative form of dispute resolution if a disagreement arises such as I have set out. This will encourage constructive dialogue between networks, operators and potential site providers. It will help new agreements be reached more quickly and address situations where landowners may feel compelled to accept terms offered by operators.
Finally, we are creating a new court process to address situations where landowners are not responsive. This process will provide a quick and inexpensive route for operators to gain access to certain types of land. Again, these measures have been developed to strike the balance  between protecting landowners and ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to reliable and quick digital infrastructure.
We need this infrastructure because of the sheer demand on our networks. Just think of all the devices that are in use at this very moment. Millions of people will be switching on their smart TVs to stream a film or a series box-set, unlocking their phones or tablets to call a friend or a relative, or asking their smart speakers to play music or give information. Around this Chamber, right now, many wrists are sporting smartwatches that keep us up to date with the latest news or alert us to the fact that we have a new message from those infamous WhatsApp groups. [Laughter.] Sorry—I just couldn’t resist.
But with every connectable product that enters our lives, the risk of cyber-attack grows. In the first half of 2021 alone, we saw 1.5 billion attacks on connectable products—double the figure for the same period in 2020. Most of us assume that if a product is for sale in the UK it is safe and secure, but thousands of people in the UK have been victims of cyber-attacks. Many of them have lost significant amounts of money or have had their private data hacked and shared, and they have lost trust in the idea that they can connect with one another and go about their daily lives with confidence. This is not just damaging on a personal level; it also has serious implications for our national security. Cyber-criminals now have the ability to use compromised connectable products to attack large infrastructure. We saw this with the 2016 Mirai attack, which targeted anything from baby monitors to medical devices to home appliances to disable internet access across much of the US east coast.
In the past few years, this Government have made significant progress to strengthen the UK’s cyber-security. In 2018, we published a code for manufacturers to improve the security of their own consumer devices. We led the world on this, and that code has since been used by countries such as Australia and India to inform their own product security principles. However, the cyber landscape is constantly evolving and our approach needs to evolve with it if we want to stay safe.
We have reached the point at which legislation is required to protect citizens and networks from the harm posed by cyber-criminafls. Packaged together, the telecoms and product safety measures in the Bill will work in tandem to do just that, creating a reliable, fast broadband while supporting the growth of more secure consumer connectable products.
The Bill will enable the Government to specify a number of mandatory security requirements for smart devices. They will be set out in regulations, but manufacturers are already on notice regarding what the initial three requirements will be. The first is a ban on universal default passwords. Too often, consumer connectable products come with easy-to-guess passwords as their default setting, such as “password”, “admin” or four zeros. That makes them vulnerable to hacking, and risks compromising a user’s privacy and security right from the get-go. Under this new security requirement, all passwords that come with a new device will need to be unique and not easily guessable.
The second mandatory requirement is for manufactured consumer connectable products to provide a public point of contact so that security researchers and others  can easily report when they discover security vulnerabilities, flaws and bugs in their devices. Manufacturers can then quickly identify and address any shortcomings in their products. At present, nearly 80% of firms have no such system in place.
Finally, manufacturers will be required to be completely transparent about how often, and for how long, their products will receive security updates and patches. According to the current guidance that is being commonly issued, if we update our computers regularly when asked to do so and use two-step verification, 90% of cyber-attacks can be avoided. The requirement for manufacturers to be transparent about how often their product will receive security updates is intended to help consumers to know at which point they will need to do that.[Official Report, 4 February 2022, Vol. 708, c. 5MC.]
Businesses will have to give customers that information at the point of sale, and keep them updated throughout. If a product will not be covered by security updates, that must be disclosed. That will enable consumers to have all the facts that they need to make an informed decision about their purchase, to understand when the product they buy could become vulnerable, and to base their decision on whether or not to buy on that information. When the security requirements have not been complied with, businesses will not be allowed to make these products available in the UK. We will be able to monitor, investigate and take enforcement action against non-compliant businesses.
We have been setting consumer standards of this kind for decades. Every product on our shelves has met all sorts of minimum requirements, whether to ensure that it is fire-resistant or to ensure that it is not a choking or suffocation hazard. It should be no different in the digital age. The Bill allows us to protect people across the UK even as the world around us changes. It allows us to keep pace with technology as it transforms our everyday lives. Combined with the measures on the telecoms infrastructure, it will do a huge amount in the coming years to benefit our constituents and society at large.
I hope that Members will show their support for the Bill, and that the benefits can be realised as quickly as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nigel Evans: I do not think there could be a better birthday present than being in the Chamber today and listening to this Second Reading debate. Happy birthday, Jeff Smith!

Lucy Powell: May I extend those congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)? I think he is 21 again.
Once again, I congratulate the Secretary of State on her continuing blind loyalty to the Prime Minister. Last week she threw Big Dog a bone with her vendetta against the BBC to distract from the Prime Minister’s partying antics. How is that going? This week she has continued her role as dog-walker-in-chief, trying to tidy up Big Dog’s mess after the latest revelations about his lockdown-breaking birthday party antics. She might have picked it up and put it in a plastic bag but, as the saying goes, even she cannot polish this one! [Laughter.] We are lightening the load today, because this is a very technical Bill and we all need lifting.

Nadine Dorries: It is a very serious Bill—

Lucy Powell: It is a very serious Bill, yes—

Nigel Evans: It is just as well I am in a generous mood today, is it not?

Lucy Powell: It is just as well you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker!
We have here another infrastructure Bill. As with every big infrastructure project this Government oversee, from the northern rail betrayal to the disastrous green homes schemes, the broadband and 5G roll-out has been beset with piecemeal, short-term thinking. The Government try to get British infrastructure built on the cheap, relying on the private sector, which more often than not means foreign state-run companies. On the broadband roll-out, the Government have wasted a decade and squandered the world-leading position left by the last Labour Government. This Government’s legacy over 10 years has seen huge delays in the superfast broadband roll-out, and a widening in the digital divide. Why were we not, 10 years ago, investing in a public-private partnership, so that home-grown British businesses could develop our own 5G network? Instead of looking towards the future, and building up British capacity and resilience, the Government have left us reliant on Huawei and other foreign state-backed companies for our 5G, with all the security complications that that entails.
This Bill deals with a couple of specific aspects of the broadband and 5G roll-out: part 1 places security requirements on manufacturers of smart devices and part 2 amends the electronic communications code, which governs the rules on how rent is set for community groups and others to host phone masts on their land.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Lady is no Stalinist. Given that the underlying principle of part 2 of the Bill is the Stalinist principle that property is theft, will she be opposing it on Second Reading?

Lucy Powell: I must object to that suggestion that I am a Stalinist. I am, however, someone who believes that there should be a fair —

Desmond Swayne: No Stalinist!

Lucy Powell: Oh, no Stalinist. I am someone who believes that there should be a fair valuation, and a fair and balanced approach taken to those who put masts on their land in good faith, expecting that income to come in the future. I will say more on that shortly.
We support the measures in part 1. Smart devices have increasingly become targets for fraud, surveillance and other forms of cyber-attack. We have some concerns that these measures have not come sooner and do not go further. In 2016, the Government promised that
“the majority of online products and services coming into use”
would be
“’secure by default’ by 2021”.
Why are the Government only just bringing this legislation in, given that previous commitment? These requirements should and could have been mandatory from the start, as opposed to our spending four years with a voluntary code. I have real concerns that we are always behind the technology curve. These devices are already being used in ways beyond the scope of this Bill—for example, by stalkers and abusive partners in tracking those they are  abusing, as well as in fraud and criminal activity. There is nothing in this Bill about that, let alone measures to address new waves of technology that are already making their way into people’s homes and lives, such as virtual reality.
Moving to part 2, our main concern with this Bill is that it is likely to slow down, rather than speed up, the broadband and 5G roll-out.

John Redwood: I was very interested in the hon. Lady’s comment about virtual reality. Does she think we need to change the legislation now to deal with the metaverse, which is meant to be a great opportunity of bringing together various technologies in something new?

Lucy Powell: I do. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the metaverse; we are constantly considerably behind the curve on legislating for the regulation of some of these issues, and of course that will not even be covered by the forthcoming Online Safety Bill either. The pandemic has demonstrated more than ever the importance of broadband to our prosperity, but the Government’s failure to deliver the roll-out is hampering creative industries, businesses and those attempting to work from home.
The Government have consistently rolled back on their commitments. The Secretary of State mentioned that the Prime Minister originally promised full-fibre broadband to every household by 2025. He then downgraded that pledge to universal gigabit-capable broadband to every home. The commitment is now that at least 85% of UK premises will have access to gigabit broadband by 2025. That is downgrade after downgrade, which sells our capacity short.
The National Audit Office expressed serious reservations that even the watered-down target would be met. The main barrier is the Government-funded roll-out to harder-to-reach areas. The unequal roll-out of next generation gigabit broadband will mean that the same households that do not have superfast or, in many cases, as we have already heard, any functioning broadband at all, will continue to fall behind—for years, if not decades, to come. As the Public Accounts Committee said last week, the Government have no detailed plan in place for reaching communities where it is not commercially viable to do so, and there is little in the Bill to address that key issue.
The Bill does make further changes to the electronic communications code, which governs the agreements between telecoms companies and the landowners who host their masts. The code was last updated as recently as 2017, but those changes have not had the desired effect of speeding up roll-out.
Despite promises that rent would not reduce by more than 40%, many community sports grounds, churches and local authorities that host phone masts have had their rents cut by up to 90% or even 95% in some of the cases that we have already heard about today. That will be further exacerbated by the Bill, which hands more power to the telecoms companies in court and disincentivises people from coming forward to have phone masts put on their land in the first place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) looks like he is itching to come in on that point.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) intimated that people would want to take their land back as a consequence of the changes. I hope that she has identified that that is not possible. People will not get their land back unless they are going to develop it, and even then, they would have to go to court to get it.

Lucy Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Bill and the previous code mean that those cricket grounds, sport clubs and churches in all hon. Members’ constituencies that had phone masts put on their property in good faith to give them income that they would not otherwise have, which in many cases keeps them going, have been offered dramatically reduced rents but are forbidden by law from taking the masts down. They are between a rock and a hard place. It will put many of those community groups, and the roll-out, at risk.
There is a real risk that the Bill will hamper, rather than support, faster broadband and 5G roll-out, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the effect of the 2017 changes on rent levels and on the speed of roll-out? Given that previous reforms to the code have resulted in no demonstrable improvement, what makes her think that strengthening the hand of telecoms firms will speed up the roll-out, rather than simply allowing them to increase their profits further? I think that is the thinking behind the now not-selected reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for New Forest West, with which I have a great deal of sympathy.
The Opposition support the broad approach of the Bill, but the security measures are too little, too late and are behind the technology curve rather than in front of it.

Ruth Edwards: I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest and I think that security is an issue on which we can work across the House. What specific measures from the 2018 “Secure by Design” guidance does she think should be included in the Bill but are not at the moment?

Lucy Powell: I am coming to the end of my speech, but there are a number of issues that could have been included in the Bill, some of which I have outlined. There are security issues, and there are new waves of technologies that are not in the Bill’s scope; as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, they are coming on us really quickly. Bills like this one tend to come three or four years behind the technology, rather than ahead of it. That is what I would like us to work together to address.
In conclusion, we fear that these telecommunications infrastructure measures could further hamper the Government’s pretty woeful record on broadband and 5G infrastructure.

Desmond Swayne: I have been asked to vote for some pretty awful stuff over the past couple of years, but this has to be the most profoundly un-Conservative measure. It will compound the damage that was done to rights of property in 2017, and the proposal to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 will extend that damage to other walks of our national life, fundamentally undermining our position as a stable and predictable place in which to invest.
The digital roll-out has been stymied by changes that have brought about the very reverse of what was originally intended with the changes to the code in 2017. As a consequence, our constituents have been intimidated and bullied.
I have a constituent who refused a survey—she did not want a mast, because it would compromise her existing enterprise—but caved in when she was threatened with court action. Then, when she refused the terms of the mast, she was presented with statutory orders requiring access for both a temporary and a permanent mast. Of course, getting legal advice comes at an enormous cost. Happily, New Forest national park authority has thrown out the applications for both masts, but the battle, the uncertainty and the cost continue.
I have a group of constituents in a block who have let their collective roof for an antenna over the past few years and received an income, but have now received a demand with menace for a dramatic reduction in the income. They are having to deal with a demand for a 30-year lease of their entire roof. It is really quite extraordinary how the terms of trade have been rigged against landowners.
The Secretary of State presented the matter as if the problem were the landowners—as if we have to find ways of getting landowners to become more reasonable. When I had a meeting with the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, she reassured me with the alternative dispute resolution process, which we have heard about from the Secretary of State today. The problem with that procedure is that it is not mandatory. The telecom companies know that they do not need to engage with it, because they can afford to go to court and their victims cannot. That is the difficulty—that is the outrage that we have created.
It is no wonder that the whole roll-out has stalled and that no one wants to give access for a mast, because the income is not worth it and the consequences are frankly deplorable. Small farms, churches and small sports clubs used to have an income, but it has now crashed and they have all the uncertainty and inconvenience of continuing to host a mast. As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), there is no prospect of getting their land back without court action and development.

Simon Hoare: Sports clubs, parish halls, village halls and the like have seen a real depreciation in their income because of non-use as a result of covid, so does my right hon. Friend agree that this is precisely the worst possible time for an enforced reduction in their income? Many of them will have hard-baked an expectation into their future financial forecasts.

Desmond Swayne: Of course, and these are the very people—the hearts of our community—who are now identified as the villains whom the Bill creates more power to bring to heel. It is the most monstrous piece of legislation that has been brought before us,  and we should deal with it accordingly. We had a functioning market in 2016, and in 2017 we brought in measures. Whitehall has destroyed that market, egged on by rapacious telecom companies, and this Bill will make it even worse.

John Nicolson: In 2016, the need for regulation on product security became undeniable when huge swathes of the internet went down. This included websites such as Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Reddit and Airbnb. The attack was conducted by a botnet, an interconnected series of programmes running on a huge number of hacked devices, which overloaded the web providers with requests for access. However, unlike previous or more conventional attacks, this one did not emerge through laptops and computers. This attack came through domestic appliances. I am sure that this will sound completely ridiculous to the many people gripped by this debate: the revenge of the malevolent toaster.
The internet of things is a term given to physical objects that either have processing power or are connected to the internet, such as home security measures or even lighting. When we think of cyber-security, it is natural to think of the precautions we take when using our phones and computers, especially around personal data and online transactions. What is less well known is the risk that poor product security can have. Attacks on internet-of-things devices rose 100% in the first half of last year, and it is a worldwide problem. In the UK since the beginning of the pandemic, 49% of people have purchased an individual smart device and 57% have increased their use of internet-connected devices, yet worryingly, only one in five internet-of-things manufacturers is believed to have embedded strong security into their devices. I want to praise Which? for the excellent work it has done for consumers in investigating this sector.
As we have seen in our inquiries into tech in relation to the Online Safety Bill, it is necessary for Government to intervene, as companies will often do the bare minimum to protect users. As with online safety, one of the core solutions to product security is the principle of secure by design. It is good to see the UK Government acting to embed this principle in law, following on from the Scottish Government’s cyber resilience strategy’s aim to enshrine security by design as a foundation principle of Scotland’s cyber landscape. On the SNP Benches, we are glad that the UK Government have finally taken action on this, but there are some areas where the Bill falls short, and there is the potential to make some aspects of product security less effective.
One area of concern is that the Bill will require manufacturers to declare security flaws in their products publicly, without having a mechanism in place for automatic fixes or requiring that a fix be in place when the flaw is announced. This could make users less, not more, secure. The requirement could in effect alert hackers and malicious users to flaws without giving users the tools to fix the weaknesses, thereby ringing a bell for hackers to target those products. It has been highlighted that a majority of users will likely not have the skills to implement patching, so the benefit of the disclosure mandate, without automatic patching in place, would be without value. The Minister should look to implement requirements for automatic patching or for manufacturers to put solutions in place before the time of a public flaw disclosure.
Another oversight in the Bill is the exclusion of certain types of products, leaving millions out of scope. Internet-connected ovens, which have been targeted by malware, shutting down entire businesses, medical devices, routers and second-hand products, are all excluded  from the scope of the Bill. The Bill should clarify which products are in or out of scope. Additionally, the Bill does not cover laptops or desktops, due to the existence of a developed antivirus and security software market. However, a mere 58% of people in the UK use antivirus software. Martin Tyley, head of cyber-security at KPMG UK, has called for the inclusion of laptops and desktops in the scope of the Bill, to protect the increasing number of home workers who have been targeted since the pandemic began. Even with its current flaws, which I hope the Government will be able to iron out, the Bill attempts to tackle an important aspect of cyber-security. However, this should be part of an holistic IT security approach that is taken to defend the UK’s cyber-security landscape.
I would like to mention the enforcement mechanism in the Bill. Section 26(5) makes it clear that the Secretary of State will not be able to bring proceedings in Scotland, but the Bill will still establish enforcement mechanisms and a body to carry out enforcement actions under it. As the Scottish courts and legal system will have to manage enforcement action brought in Scotland, and oversight of the Scottish legal system is devolved, it is only right that the Scottish Government have a role in developing the enforcement mechanism. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider amending the Bill to include a duty to consult the relevant Scottish Ministers when developing the enforcement mechanism and the security requirements that are to be enforced, so as to account for the requirements of the Scottish legal system.
I also seek clarity from the UK Government on what impact the passage of the Bill will have on the powers of the Scottish Government to regulate products in Scotland. We welcome, in principle, reform of the code. We are working with civil society partners to identify ways in which the Bill can be improved in its passage.
I would like to raise one further issue. BT has highlighted Openreach’s commercial plan to upgrade 6 million properties, all of which will need agreement in order to upgrade them from the copper network. Without more ambitious reform, Openreach risks not being able to access up to 1.5 million flats, even in cases where residents want full fibre. According to BT, the Bill as it stands will not support improved connectivity to flats or rural areas, where most of the network is built above ground.
The need for a fast roll-out must be balanced with the rights of landowners, such as farmers. As we have heard, some campaigners have raised concerns about the rapid drop in rents faced by businesses hosting masts—some by as much as 90%. On this and other issues raised, I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Selaine Saxby: It is a pleasure to speak in another debate on improving the nation’s connectivity. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of connectivity issues in places such as Ilfracombe in my constituency, as has been so well documented recently, so I very much welcome the steps that the Bill is taking to begin to address some of the issues that have slowed down infrastructure deployment.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communications. We produced our own inquiry into the electronic communications code in November last year, and we are so pleased to see some of our recommendations materialising in part 2 of the Bill, focusing on telecommunications infrastructure. It is on part 2 that I will focus my comments.
The Government set a manifesto commitment to improve the UK’s broadband connectivity—a manifesto that I was proud to stand on, having heard on far too many doorsteps back in 2019 about my constituents’ connectivity concerns. The telecoms sector has experienced lengthy delays in securing access agreements since the electronic communications code was reformed back in 2017, and the Bill clearly intends to help speed up the deployment of this vital infrastructure. It is therefore warmly welcomed, in the main, by me, industry and the APPG alike.
One of the asks from our inquiry was to have a clear distinction between fibre and mobile infrastructure. It is important that the code works for both, and mobile operators welcome the Bill, which will accelerate the deployment of 4G and 5G. The new code had led to significant delays in reaching agreements with landlords, particularly where operators need to renegotiate leases as they expire, or where additional equipment needs to be added in order to upgrade or share sites to improve the service. The Bill before us seeks compromise between industry and landlords, while noting concerns in rural Britain among organisations such as the NFU, so well articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend support making the alternative dispute resolution procedure mandatory?

Selaine Saxby: My right hon. Friend makes a noble point, to which I will allow our hon. Friend the Minister to respond.
I recognise the need to balance competing interests carefully. The single greatest barrier the fixed infrastructure sector faces in the code is obtaining wayleaves and protracted negotiations with unresponsive landlords. To deliver in rural constituencies such as mine, large numbers of wayleaves to cross private land will be needed, which is seen as a risk to Project Gigabit’s success in rural Britain. Landlord negotiations to gain access to multi-dwelling units have also been problematic. The industry warmly welcomes the provisions of the Bill that would fast track wayleave negotiations via the alternative dispute resolution scheme, which will help to level up islands of poor digital connectivity, which too often centre on social housing stock.
Sharing historical wayleave agreements and the underground duct network is also warmly welcomed, although concerns remain about whether the Bill is intended to address the problem of accessing poles situated above ground on private land, which is a particular concern in rural communities, where much of the network is built overhead on poles. I hope that clarity on that point will be given as the Bill proceeds. There is also concern that the Bill does not address automatic upgrade and sharing rights of existing infrastructure, either inside blocks or flats, or overground on poles.
The pandemic has clearly showed how vital connectivity is to all our communities, as those without good broadband have struggled with so much during the pandemic. Too many schoolchildren have explained to me the problems of the circle of doom, so I thank Openreach again for coming to the aid of some of my more rural primary schools and expediting their broadband connection; but I remain concerned that this piecemeal approach to connectivity and the focus on competition in urban conurbations is reducing fibre access altogether in rural Britain. If we are truly to level up our rural communities, speeding up our digital roll-out to them is vital.
Given that my constituency resides at position 607 out of 650, I am sure the Minister is not surprised to find me here again, asking for more to be done across the north, and indeed the whole, of Devon. In this day and age, fibre broadband is a utility, and there should be universal provision. Rural constituencies such as mine should not be left behind to facilitate market competition in our towns and cities. The Bill is a great step forward, and I hope that some of the industry’s concerns will be addressed as it proceeds. The Secretary of State has clearly noted my campaigning, as has the Minister, so I very much hope it will be rewarded with faster rural roll-out than is currently planned in North Devon, before any other visitors to my lovely constituency find themselves in an all-too-readily-available North Devon notspot.

Ruth Edwards: I start by declaring my interests. Much of my previous career was spent in the cyber-security industry, and in the four years before being elected to Parliament, I led commercial strategy and public policy for BT’s cyber-security team. BT was one of the companies that helped to design the Secure by Design code of practice, some of which we are putting into law through the Bill. Also, I have recently undertaken cyber-security work for MHR, which is set out in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although the company does not produce consumer devices, connected or otherwise.
In some ways, cyber-security was good preparation for politics—for example, waking up to nightmare headlines such as,
“Attack of the refrigerators! The cyber-threats lurking in your home”
and
“Is your smart TV too wise? The FBI warns your screen is watching you”
and
“HACKED IN THE HOME: Your entire home could be HACKED with these simple mistakes, cyber-experts warn”.
Perhaps the most disturbing one I have seen is:
“Hacker who stole nude self-portraits of George W. Bush jailed for four years”.
I am all for being tough on crime, but surely in that case the perpetrator had already suffered enough.
Alarmist headlines aside, the Bill is very much needed to protect our constituents. The average UK household has nine connected devices, and the security on most of them will be poor. Information about how secure the devices are, or how long they will receive security updates  for, is unlikely to have been provided when they were sold. What are the risks? There is a huge impact on our constituents’ privacy. Your TV really could be watching you. Two years ago, footage stolen by hackers from home security cameras in Hong Kong was sold to pornographic websites—a huge invasion of people’s intimate private moments. There are numerous reports of baby monitors being hacked by paedophiles.
There is also the danger of hackers using a fairly innocuous connected device as a gateway to jump to other devices and steal valuable information. An infamous example from the business world is the attack in 2013 on Target, one of the top five retailers in the US. Criminals gained access to its network through a supplier connected to an external vendor portal. They then stole the details of 40 million customer credit and debit cards. The supplier just provided air-conditioning. The total cost of the cyber-attack was more than $200 million. That is one hell of an expensive air-conditioning bill. There was also an attack on a casino, where hackers gained entry to the network through the thermometer of a fish tank.
Once they have a foothold in the home, hackers can access other devices that are not properly secured. There is a real danger that sensitive information relating to a constituent’s health or their financial information could be compromised, but how common is that really? Is it just a case of a few alarmist headlines? The consumer watchdog Which? ran an interesting experiment last year. It set up a smart home with a range of consumer devices, from kettles to thermostats, televisions and security devices, all connected to the internet. It experienced 12,000 hacking or scanning attempts in a week. At one stage, it experienced up to 14 hacking attempts an hour. We have a problem, therefore, but not a problem of which many people are aware. A recent report that surveyed 2,000 UK consumers found that people were largely unaware of the risks. Some 48% of respondents were not aware that hackers could hijack their connected devices.
Unsecured consumer devices are also a real risk to our digital infrastructure. Hackers who control connected devices can harness their collective power into a botnet—a network of devices that can be used to launch denial of service attacks on our digital infrastructure. The Secretary of State referred earlier to the Mirai botnet. What is interesting is that it is thought to be the first botnet to harness the power of insecure consumer devices or the internet of things. At its peak, it had about 600,000 devices—baby monitors, radios, cameras—at its beck and call. You and I would not necessarily have noticed it, Mr Deputy Speaker, until the day it launched an attack on the domain name service provider Dyn in 2016. In doing so, it took out Netflix, PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Reddit and Airbnb for the best part of a day.
Contrary to some of the claims we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches, the UK has always been a world-leading cyber-power. Back in 2011, we were one of the first countries in the world to publish a cyber-security strategy. It recognised the risks and opportunities that cyber-security brought to nation state relationships, critical infrastructure, business, consumers and society as a whole. We have always been out in front when it comes to protecting people, businesses and critical infrastructure.
In the 2016 refresh of the national cyber-security strategy, the Government moved from relying on a market-based approach to protect consumers, to a more active role through the UK’s active cyber defence programme, which makes the infrastructure of the UK’s internet more difficult for cyber-criminals to exploit. It does that through measures such as improving the security of internet protocols—the method by which data is sent from one computer to another—and domain name system filtering that blocks access to sites known to host malware, such as phishing sites. The 2016 strategy also committed to publishing guidance on how to improve the default security of consumer products. There are three measures on that in the Bill. As we know, it forms the basis of similar codes used in India and Australia, but it also forms the basis of the first global technical standard for consumer cyber-security products. So far from being behind, the UK is the leading country in the world on this issue.
As has been set out, the three measures put forward are: banning default passwords; implementing a vulnerability reporting scheme; and informing consumers how long a product will receive security updates for at the point of sale. They are really necessary because, I am sorry to say, we have not seen the response from industry that we should have. Too many manufacturers are still not taking responsibility for ensuring their products have the basic security that our constituents need. Too many still shunt their security responsibilities on to the users of their products.
We need to call time on this. The digital economy is growing and holds huge opportunities, but those who benefit from its growth should also be investing in the safety and security of its users. We are still, in my view, only on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution, the fusing of our digital and physical worlds. Cyber-security needs to be a part of that revolution to ensure that the inevitable risks are outweighed by the opportunities.

Matt Warman: As the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said, this is a technical Bill, but it is hugely important and will make a real difference. It will build on the incredible speed of the gigabit roll-out programme—up to 65% from just 11% two years ago. That is, whether she likes it or not, the fastest roll-out in the world, delivered under the Minister, and indeed under her predecessor—but I will leave that to the rest of the House to judge. She is right, however, to say that we should be doing everything we can to go as fast as we possibly can. I humbly submit that setting the large number of broadband providers that operate in this country in competition against each other to get as much of the country connected as possible, is one of the ways that is delivering that incredible roll-out speed and I think she should welcome that.
None the less, it is important to make sure that the operators that seek to deliver the roll-out are able to access the land they need. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made a passionate speech, possibly one that none of us was expecting in this kind of debate, in defence of landowners. Landowners are a crucial part of getting  the roll-out right, but I say gently to him that there has been an incredibly successful lobbying campaign on behalf of those landowners, who, for a very long time, have had a very good deal. The 2017 proposals to cut the amount of money they receive, bringing it in line with other utilities—we could argue about whether broadband is technically a utility—was absolutely the right thing to do. It is what will speed up the roll-out programme.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

Matt Warman: I will let my right hon. Friend intervene in a minute. He talked about the benefit to landowners. When we get the roll-out right and get masts at as many locations as possible, the benefit accrues not to landowners primarily but to all the communities that live around them. That is where we should be focusing, not primarily on the small number of landowners who are concerned.

Desmond Swayne: I am only interested in the lobbying of my constituents who have been so harshly affected. We have heard the stories of the 90% and 95% reductions in income. This has made things very much less expensive for the companies concerned. Where has that money gone? It has certainly not been invested in the programme.

Matt Warman: My right hon. Friend does not make a wholly unreasonable point, but ultimately that money is going into an incredibly rapid roll-out of 5G. In rural areas in particular, we are seeing the industry putting in half a billion pounds of its own money alongside half a billion pounds of Government money to get to some of those hardest to reach places, so I fundamentally do not accept his premise, which is that the industry is not investing as it should. I would like the Government to go even further to see even more investment. He is right to focus on some of the small areas that rely on this income. However, that cannot be the main economic driver for the roll-out of 5G.

Simon Hoare: Does my hon. Friend accept that the reverse seems to be happening and that the roll-out seems to be slowing down? Does he also accept that this is a rather mature market of providers in an increasingly profitable arena, with ever-greater demand for their services from a growing population? Therefore, it may be worthwhile revisiting this de-incentivisation—obviously that was not the intention but it seems to be the result—to see whether restoring the proper remuneration that people had expected may speed up this much-needed roll-out.

Matt Warman: Ultimately, I think reducing it in the predictable and long-announced way is what will speed up the roll-out. However, to give my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West, who is no longer in his place, a little succour, the industry should be on notice that if the currently voluntary dispute resolution system does not work and does not deliver fair settlements, perhaps the Government will think about giving the system some more teeth. There is a balance to be struck, and this Bill strikes it in the right way. However, there is another step that one could take.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous with his time. We had this sort of debate about the water companies and sewage. Unless their toes are  held to the fire, they will exploit a system—I do not criticise them for so doing—for as long as they can. If the Government were more robust in bringing this forward as a clear commitment and making it binding and obligatory, that might help unblock the logjam.

Matt Warman: Ultimately, I simply say, from a Conservative standpoint, that I would like regulation to be as light touch as possible. This is the right step down that road. It may be necessary to be more robust, but we are not there yet.
Moving on to “secure by design”, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) asked the Opposition which of the other 13 points they would bring in. This Bill introduces three of them, and they are immensely welcome, but they are the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to cyber-security. I would not jump immediately to all 13, and the world has somewhat moved on since the 2017 report to which she referred, but there is a clear direction of travel. I welcome how the Government are introducing the proposal, but the industry should be looking at what more there might be to do.
Finally, my hon. Friend also talked about cyber-security in a much broader sense than this Bill. A huge number of businesses will rely on cyber-security professionals in future to ensure that they are provided with the kind of security that they need and that which their insurance companies’ policies might require to guard them against the potential costs of hacking. In due course, some of the people operating in that profession will require greater regulation. The UK Cyber Security Council, which the Minister oversees, is welcome, but further regulation, perhaps in the manner of the Bar Council, is what will allow the cyber-security profession to grow, flourish and continue to preserve Britain’s place as a world-leading cyber-power, which we all want. This Bill helps us to get ever closer to that goal, and I commend it to the House.

Siobhan Baillie: I applaud the Government for the energy they are putting into trying to improve our connectivity. There are undoubtedly still notspots in my rural constituency. Having Zoomed constantly in my River Severn village throughout the pandemic, I find that the pizza wheel of doom—when the tinternet is struggling and people freeze in strange positions—is no longer funny; it is just annoying. I recognise that improvements are needed, and I see what the Government are trying to do, but many of my constituents are experiencing a David and Goliath situation, which I am worried about. That is where I will focus my comments.
Trying to deal with the might of the telecommunications companies is a pretty scary feat for any constituent, even before some of the tactics that I have sadly seen deployed. In my short tenure as Stroud’s MP, since the 2019 election, I have dealt with a number of mast issues; some people are amazed by how many mast issues have come up locally. I will summarise a couple. The Minister has been kind enough to look at case studies in my area. There have been issues with masts in Painswick village, where, sadly, Stroud District Council infamously missed a deadline that effectively led to permission being given by default on a controversial site. That matter rumbles  on and has caused a lot of upset and stress for neighbours and the landowner. I understand other councils in the country have faced this issue.
There have been local applications in little villages in areas of outstanding natural beauty that effectively rely on terrifying elderly landowners. A village clubbed together to get professional advice to support a landowner to deal with that. A Stroud farmer currently receives a £10,000 annual rent payment for an existing mast but has been offered a significantly lower amount. We know that farmers struggle to make ends meet and that the Government are telling them to diversify, so these incomes can be fundamental to getting food on their own tables, let alone putting food on ours. Negotiation is limited—this farmer is a big, burly guy who does not feel bullied and told the company to take the mast away—but it goes on and on, and he does not feel like he is in a strong position.
If the Bill relies on the courts for remedy, I believe the roll-out will continue to stall. Courts are the remedy only for those who can afford it. Disputes have drastically increased, as have stress, frustration and anger, since the 2017 changes, and I fear it will get worse. The electronic communications code—this is a bit more technical—grants code operators the right to access land to install and maintain apparatus and to seek such rights to be imposed by the courts where agreement cannot be reached. One key change introduced in 2017 was to modify the pricing mechanism that the court should apply; as we heard, there has not been a proper look at pricing and valuation, even in the consultation on the Bill. The pricing mechanism was changed from market value to realign it along similar principles to compulsory purchase—we all know how painful compulsory purchase has been for many of our communities, not just Stroud—with statutory assumptions to place the valuation in the no-scheme or network world. That change was against the findings and recommendations of the Law Commission, and effectively of Nordicity and Analysys Mason, which is beyond my pay grade but I am told is important.
We are now in a situation where code operators typically portray landlords as a grasping group who cause delay to hold them to ransom for more rent. That is not my experience. Where code operators seek to acquire new sites, there are a range of different reasons why challenges are put up by constituents, local villages and local communities. I will give a few of the common themes I have come across. High on the list is the potential effect on, or conflict with, the landlord’s own use of the wider landholding and other tenants’ activities. The potential impact on the landlord’s own future development aspirations and the visual impact of unsightly and often poorly designed electronic communications apparatus on the wider landholding or host building are high up the list before rent comes into it, along with: adverse impacts on neighbours or disputes with neighbours about a mast going up; adverse effects on the marketability of other land or buildings; adverse impacts on the investment value; structural issues and future maintenance of a building or structure on the site; the extent of extended health and safety or drop or fall zones; and the implications of further development granted as permitted development. All those are on the list. It is not just about rent or money.
Stroud constituents inform me that the code operators have sadly proved generally insensitive and unsympathetic to addressing such issues. Instead they have interpreted  the ECC changes as granting them rights over any third-party land almost for free and on terms that they can dictate, so that they can do almost anything at any time. It is that mindset of entitlement over private rights, and the blinkered belief that digital communications are the only important thing, that are influencing decisions.
The code operators are looking to acquire large numbers of sites and to renew hundreds of leases. Given the process-orientated targets internally, no doubt the resource is driven by objectives and milestones, and less by humans—the people it affects. I fully accept that we are thinking about humans all over the country when we are trying to improve connectivity, but I worry about the balance. Bullying local people is not acceptable. No matter how much my Stroud constituents want faster this, that and the other—and, in many cases, how much we need connectivity actually to work—they do not want their neighbours to be bullied and they expect Government legislation to protect the weaker party. By any analysis, it is usually the constituent landowner, not the telecommunications organisation, that is usually the weaker party.
Local councillors tell me that they feel pretty impotent on this issue. Constituents do not feel that their local councils have any power, so there is a disconnect between who they feel protected by and the changes with the legislation. I will give the House a bit of an overview of the process that constituents have outlined. Mr Deputy Speaker, please shout or nod at me if you want me to wind up, because I realise that I am taking some time, but these are important points.
The process starts with a landlord being approached by a site acquisition agent—not necessarily a well-known company—seeking access to land to undertake a survey. That request is then accompanied by a threat, effectively, to gain access via an application to the upper tribunal, and this is pointed out as almost impossible to resist, with the likely cost of a vast sum of money to the landowner in the case of resistance. I am thinking not about my big burly farmer, but about the elderly landowner who is worrying about this. Access is often granted unwillingly, which confuses neighbours and starts arguments locally. A survey is then undertaken and the landlord is sent a set of heads of terms, sometimes with an imploding offer of capital payment if they are agreed within a short period. Without any real attempts to negotiate or listen to concerns raised, notices are then served under the ECC, which cock the gun for reference to an upper tribunal again for the imposition of an agreement.

Desmond Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for so clearly summing up the process of what the Secretary of State called “community engagement”.

Siobhan Baillie: I only wish I was as beautifully dramatic and exciting as my right hon. Friend when I spoke. I am conscious that I am reading a list to the Chamber, but it is an important list because it shows the experience of so many constituents. It may be dull, but it is scary, and it is a very worrying time for our constituents.
If residents and businesses are lucky—some of my constituents have been—it is usually at around this stage that they instruct professional support, because  they are so worried. They start to think about how to object to the application. It is pretty late in the game—a long way down the track—but often people do not realise that it is an option and a lot cannot afford it. However, I am being told that people are successful in getting the applications refused in most cases where professional support is provided.
The lack of investment by the code operators in good-quality design, and the lack of mitigating features such as screening or structural landscaping, reflect the arrogant assumption that they can simply pass on societal costs of their development to the public at large, while simultaneously claiming that planning is a barrier to deployment. All those things are often lost in that long process before we get help to understand what really should be brought into the planning applications.
It is clear that, where planning permission is granted, landlords come under the real threat of a reference to the upper tribunal, and given the extremely high costs of litigation, quite a lot of people will fold at that point, regardless of the merits of their case. I have to believe that the code operators do not set out to behave in an egregious manner. I have met so many staff from telecommunications companies who come to consultations, and they are good people who want to find solutions, but time and again, these are programmes that the agents, acting on their behalf, are running through. My fear is that the totality of the changes we are looking at now, far from redressing the balance of power, will tip the scales further in favour of the code operators. As a consequence, the proposed changes in the Bill will actually exacerbate the marketplace issues being experienced, even if they try to resolve some of the legal anomalies.
I fear that we have lost sight of the mission, which is how best to deploy networks in the most appropriate places. We are trying to fix the issues we have experienced since 2017 with a piece of misused and, in effect, abused legislation that was supposed to be used as a last resort, but is now very much used de rigueur by the companies. I do not think that is the way to make improvements for the landowners and the companies, nor is it a way to roll out the improvements the country wants to see.
I want to know from the Minister how the Bill addresses what has become the main issue with the framework, which is the way costs fall on landowners and have in effect become the latest bludgeon to beat them with. The cost of seeking advice is high and will often far outweigh any consideration that is offered, even over a 10-year period. Whatever the merits of the landlord’s position, to contest any matter in the courts is very costly, and the extreme costs associated with losing mean that few but the largest with much at stake will be able to take that step, as I have mentioned. However, I think we have to keep hammering the point home.
I want to know, given that we have the experiences of things such as the water companies and the environmental fights happening all over the country, and given that we know that the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 6 provide the right to a fair hearing, why we are not seeking to strengthen the alternative dispute resolution option and thinking about making it mandatory. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is learned, in that I  do not see why we should wait to see if the measure fails before we make improvements that will support everybody to achieve the goals.
Finally, I was really disappointed that we have not worked harder to think carefully about the valuations. The information coming forward is that it is not about a slight chunk off what there is already or even an attempt to rebalance the ability to look at utility companies; the offers coming out to people with masts on their land is a dramatic change. It does not feel fair and will not achieve the goals, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether we can take another look at the valuation structure.
This has been a negative speech, but I thank the Government for the work they are doing. However, I think we can do better for everybody involved, and by doing better we will achieve some serious connectivity throughout the country, particularly in rural areas.

Edward Timpson: I am conscious that I am the last Back-Bench speaker in the debate, and I see a number of hon. Members who have shown a late curiosity in it over the past few minutes, so I will try to keep my remarks as pithy as I possibly can.
I will confine my contribution to part 2 of the Bill, on the changes to the electronic communications code and, in particular, the Government’s measures to improve digital connectivity and meet their target of delivering gigabit-capable broadband to 85% of UK premises by 2025. I think it is fair to say that we have made real strides in that direction, underpinned by the universal service obligation. Locally, we have Connecting Cheshire, the BDUK delivery partner, working to ensure that that is being met; the gigabit broadband voucher scheme, which I know many of my constituents have taken advantage of; and more recently the addition of Cheshire to Project Gigabit, which will hopefully mean that we secure more of the significant funding that has been committed to that project.
I argue that Eddisbury is a good test bed from which to judge the success of the Government’s commitment. It is the 92nd largest constituency geographically, and 57.9% of it is classed as rural. It is 599th out of 650 constituencies for superfast broadband coverage. Some 23.5% of my constituents are aged 65 and over, against the national average of 18.6%. As we know, isolation is an issue for that age group, and therefore digital connectivity is particularly crucial. We also have a high number of small businesses scattered across the constituency. Some are run by people from their home, not least the many farmers in Eddisbury, or from a local commercial building, so the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband is fundamental to the whole of my constituency and the local economy moving forward.
For all those local residents and businesses, reliable and resilient broadband and mobile coverage of a more than decent speed has become ever more essential, accelerated, as we know, by the covid pandemic. Simply put, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said, it is now one of life’s necessary utilities. It is therefore pleasing to report that in Eddisbury we have seen significant improvements in our broadband infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who did some sterling work to try to make those figures  move in a very positive direction. We now have 89.7% of premises with superfast broadband availability. Some 56.2% are gigabit capable, which is up 15% in the last year alone, and I think up from just 7% in 2018.
However, as we have heard, there is still much to do, particularly in the many villages and rural areas of south Cheshire. For example, 9.4% of premises in Eddisbury receive broadband speeds of under 10 megabits per second, compared with 6.4% across the whole of the north-west. Since my election in December 2019, I and my staff have dealt with more than 100 cases of poor connectivity raised by frustrated constituents. The local survey that we carried out on the issue revealed that 55% of those who took part felt that their broadband provider did not meet the level of internet speeds that it had advertised in its plan. Respondents also fed back frustration about the real difficulty, and exasperating delay, in reaching agreements that allow for fibre cables to be laid across private land to connect properties—a frustration that the Bill seeks to address.
To give the House a short local example, there are 12 properties in a semi-rural location that sit between two areas where fibre has already been installed. Their broadband is delivered through copper telephone lines at very slow speeds of between 1 megabit and 5 megabits per second. In 2019, BT Openreach considered installing fibre as part of a wider project in the local area, but subsequently withdrew because of the incessant delays in obtaining wayleaves. To compound the problem, Openreach has estimated the cost of installing fibre via trench in fields adjacent to the lane that the properties are located on to be £55,000—a sum well beyond the amount that could be raised through the gigabit voucher scheme. In any event, both BT Openreach and Connecting Cheshire have, for some as yet unexplained reason, deemed that the 12 properties are not eligible for the vouchers. As a consequence, we have a stalemate. My team and I are doing all that we can to unlock the impasse, including on potential top-up funding and inclusion in the Airband project. I ask the Minister what assistance she and her team may be able to provide to ensure that those in the properties get the broadband that they want, although it may well be that without this legislation a solution may be a long way down the track.
I support the proposed reforms to the electronic communications code that include the introduction of a faster procedure to allow telecom operators to get temporary rights to access and install infrastructure on land, as well as the sharing of equipment as part of any upgrade. In doing so, I am of course mindful of, and have sympathy with, the concerns raised by a number of Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), off the back of the 2017 reforms that resulted, in some cases, in reductions in rents for hosting infrastructure, which can affect the resolution timeframe.
As we have heard, those issues were not revisited in the 2021 consultation, and I think that many of us would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will continue to monitor the issues of both valuation and dispute resolution in order to understand the consequences of the changes in the code arrangements. That will ensure that my landowner constituents feel they are getting the right value for their commitment, while my local residents can expect to have their gigabit broadband as quickly as possible.
Overall, this is an important Bill, bringing about the ever more pressing digital connection of our entire country. In Eddisbury we are taking significant steps in that direction, but there remains much more to do, and to that that end—with the help of the Bill— I will continue to do all I can to make it happen.

Chris Elmore: It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate. The first job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and I am glad that the security elements of the Bill were developed in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre and the Department. Her Majesty’s Opposition have the utmost confidence in our national security services, which go to such incredible lengths to keep us all safe in an increasingly difficult online world.
A number of speeches have been made by Members on both sides of the House, but let me deal first with what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), both of whom spoke about the notspots in their constituencies and the increasing problems with access to tech. People may have the “plumbing” that can provide a good standard of broadband, but they may not have, indeed may not be able to afford, the equipment that would give them access to it.
We in the Labour party put security at the heart of everything we do, and it is owing to that desire to see people in this country safe in cyber-space that we will not oppose the Bill. However, there are issues that we feel should be addressed in it, some of which have already been mentioned today.
The product security measures in part 1 contain proposals that Labour fully supports. They include a ban on devices that come with easy-to-guess passwords such as “default” and “admin”, and oblige firms to make such vulnerabilities public knowledge, with those failing to comply being threatened with large fines. That is especially prudent as it institutes common-sense rules for sellers to follow, and ensures that consumers are more engaged in cyber-security. Basic cyber-hygiene is paramount, and measures such as changing default passwords would do a great deal to improve devices’ security by, in theory, adding an additional layer of protection. However, we agree with many in the industry that certain measures could have gone further, and we will continue to hold the Government to account in the areas where we believe that to be the case.
While the pursuit of increased security on devices is laudable, there are concerns about the practicality of such changes. If each device is now legally bound to have a private password, who will be responsible for managing it? Given the plethora of smart devices that we all use, I am sure that we have all forgotten a password or two; I certainly have. If a device needed to be repaired and the user had forgotten the password, how would the specialist repairing the phone gain access? Many in the industry believe that that could potentially lead to a situation in which manufacturers might have to provide “super-user accounts” or “backdoor access”.
The Bill also introduces the mandating of manufacturers to tell consumers at the point of sale about the product’s lifespan and for how long it will receive security updates.  While we can all agree that more transparency is a good thing for customers, if security updates are available for a few years—as is the case with Android phones, for example—surely that will lead to built-in obsolescence, meaning, in this case, smart devices being excluded from key security updates after a relatively short lifespan.

Ruth Edwards: The point is that the companies providing the devices will stop giving out security updates anyway. All that the Bill is doing is ensuring that users are informed of when that will happen. It is not forcing in any obsolescence; it is merely giving consumers choice by enabling them to know when those security updates will be stopped.

Chris Elmore: I take the hon. Lady’s point, but not everyone can afford simply to keep on replacing their technology. [Interruption.] I gave way to the hon. Lady, so she should at least give me the courtesy of allowing me to respond. It is quite simple, is it not? [Interruption.] Government Members do not like it, do they? Perhaps this is not an issue in her constituency, but I bet it is. If a company says, “You will not receive security updates after X amount of time”, people will naturally assume that they have to replace their device. We have heard from Members from across the House today that not everyone can afford to keep replacing devices based on the security that is put in front of them.
All I am asking of the Minister is to work with the industry to ensure that if updates could be taken over a longer period, it is not simply a binary issue of saying, “This device will no longer be updated.” It is as simple as that: we are just trying to make sure that people can afford to keep the devices they own. In many cases, people will save for years to pay for devices or do it through hire purchase.

Ruth Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Elmore: I will not, no, because the hon. Lady does not like the answer—that is the problem, is it not?
We must also consider the wider view that part 1 of Bill is limited in scope. However, it is clear to all of us here today that no one nation can legislate the internet. Part 1 does provide some desperately needed security responsibilities for the consumer, combined with giving them the necessary information to make informed choices about how they manage the basics of their own digital lives. The pandemic has only served to accelerate the shift to digital, and with that comes the question of increased security and safeguards online.
Now let us turn to part 2 of the Bill. I do not often say this, but I am in almost complete agreement with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)—that is an odd experience, after so many years in the House with him. A number of Members have spoken about constituency issues relating to the changes to the code in 2017, including the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). It is a good job I am a Welsh MP, because the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) have also done so. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who spoke honestly about what many community groups, farmers, landowners, churches and many other organisations across her constituency are facing, and I agree with her.
We are asking the Government for a review, for it to be fair and for it to provide assurance to those organisations, many of which were the backbone of supporting communities up and down the land during the pandemic, whether through feeding us, taking us in collective worship or offering support to our children and young people. These community organisations deserve our support and we need to ask the Government to follow through on their commitment to undertake a review this year, which was part of the original commitment from a number of years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for saying that.
On part 2 and the current state of our country’s telecommunications infrastructure, we do have some concerns, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the shadow Secretary of State. Having inherited a world-leading position from the last Labour Government, since 2010 the Conservatives have cultivated a culture of missed targets, stunted ambition, and ultimately, stagnation when it comes to our telecommunications infrastructure. The last Labour Government recognised the central role that connectivity would play in the economy of the future, and rightly placed the issue front and centre. As a result, we delivered first-generation broadband to about 13 million UK households by 2009, which shows that large digital infrastructure projects can be delivered at breakneck speed.
To put it simply, we had a vision that we made a reality. Ambitions can be delivered at this sort of speed only when there is real effort, action and long-term planning on behalf of Ministers. Unfortunately, we are not getting that from the current Administration. As has become the norm with this Government, bold and exciting-sounding targets are made in public, only to be quietly watered down at a later stage. The Prime Minister came into office promising full-fibre broadband “by 2025”. His Government then realised that they were not going to be able to deliver it, so they reduced the target to full gigabit broadband by 2025. Realising they also could not deliver that, they landed at the current target of 85% gigabit broadband by 2025. Several bodies, including the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and many industry experts, now doubt that the Government are even going to achieve that. Dither, delay, disappointment—this has become the norm under this Conservative Government.
The primary concern is that this Bill fails to address the fundamental flaws introduced in the ECC. The code did not receive the necessary scrutiny, resulting in an imbalance between mobile operators and property owners. The Law Society’s analysis makes it clear that the Bill fails to address fundamental flaws in the code that are holding back the roll-out across the country. We are now concerned that the measures in this Bill may slow the 5G roll-out further by disincentivising small building owners and landowners, such as churches, community groups, sports clubs and farmers, from hosting phone masts.
This all began when the Government introduced the ECC in 2017, permitting telecoms firms to renegotiate rents for phone masts down by as much as 90%. Despite promising that the reductions in rent would, in reality, be no more than 40%, this has not held true and the rent reductions have far exceeded that figure. It was deeply  disappointing to hear the Secretary of State say to the right hon. Member for New Forest West that there will be no review, despite there being promises to the contrary—yet another broken promise to the people of this country.
The Government have created a framework that allows telecoms companies to dramatically reduce their costs at the expense of businesses, sports clubs, farmers, small landowners and community organisations. I know the Minister will have heard at first hand from a number of organisations across the country that rely on this small but crucial source of income. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Government review the Bill to make rental valuations for telecoms masts fairer.
We heard from the hon. Member for Stroud about the David and Goliath issue of a big telecoms company versus a church, sports club or scout hut. It surely cannot be in the Conservative Government’s interest simply to ignore all the groups across the country that are in desperate need of the regular income that has been ripped away from them for reasons they still do not really understand.
I finish with a couple of questions for the Minister. Will the Government stand by their 2017 commitment that rent reductions should be no more than an absolute maximum of 40%? Will she look to make a statement, or at least issue guidance, to establish a clear expectation of land valuation that removes the impasse between telecoms companies and site owners? Finally, will she commit to looking at the evidence base and undertake a full economic review of the code by the end of 2022, as was promised during the passage of the previous Bill?
The Opposition want to ensure that every community across the UK has the very best opportunities when it comes to connectivity, whether it be in people’s homes or to allow small businesses to start up right across the United Kingdom. We want the Government to share in that ambition and to keep their promise to deliver improved digital infrastructure. We ask the Minister to step up and deliver these much-needed improvements across the UK.

Julia Lopez: I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. I am pleased that the Bill commands cross-party support, which underlines the commitment of this House to make sure that every household and business in our country can access faster digital connectivity and feel assured that our tech is secure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for laying the foundations for this Bill and for bringing his expertise to bear in today’s debate.
This Bill comes at an opportune time when cyber-attacks are on the rise and the pandemic has underlined the increasing importance of digital connectivity to how we live, work and socialise. The quality and security of that connectivity has an impact on people’s life chances today and even more so in the future, so we have to grip these issues now. That is why we have to view fantastic telecoms infrastructure as more akin to a key utility, notwithstanding the need for different regulatory approaches.
In that way, this should not be seen as a dry debate about technology. I appreciate the valiant attempts to spice up this debate, which is about people and how we  give them and their communities the fundamental tools to live good lives and prosper. These networks are vital for the UK’s future competitiveness. We cannot stay at the heart of the global economy if our connections are not world class, which is something we want not just for pockets of our nation but for every community.
We must not see a digital divide emerge between well-connected urban areas and poorly connected rural areas. I know how passionate Members are about the connectivity of their regions, and I welcome their highlighting of the challenges. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who is tireless in her pursuit of better broadband for her county. I encourage ongoing engagement with my Department so that we get high-quality intelligence about what is really happening on the ground as our operators roll out new networks and upgrade existing. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) to write to me in detail with some of his concerns about particular streets in his constituency.
As tech becomes a central driving force for our economy and our society, we have to be able to trust it without ordinary citizens needing deep expertise in cyber-security. That is why we want to make connected devices more secure by design, whether baby monitors or malevolent toasters, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson)—perhaps not as perilous a nightmare as that offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), who discussed pictures of nude US Presidents. Cyber-attacks continue to be a serious and current threat to businesses and states, but this is also increasingly a phenomenon that is affecting all sorts of organisations, from local authorities and public bodies to individuals. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) raised an important point about the service of cyber officials and the tremendous work they do, and I echo his words.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) made a typically zesty contribution, but I am glad that he has at least accepted that we ought to be debating these issues, as yesterday he was considering not allowing that. He is very concerned about lowered rents for landlords who are hosting telecoms infrastructure. We have discussed these issues in person. As he knows, the electronic communications code was changed in 2017. I should make it clear again—I know this will disappoint hon. Members—that we are not seeking to alter that pricing structure again. In our view, the prices being paid for rights to install communications apparatus prior to 2017 were much too high, and with digital communications becoming an increasingly critical part of daily life, that really needed to be addressed.
The argument has been made that delays in digital deployment are primarily a result of changes to the code in 2017 because the amounts offered by some operators are reduced, thereby disincentivising landowners from letting land be used. We do not think this is the case. We maintain that the 2017 valuation provisions created the right balance between public need for digital communications and landowner rights.
But that is not to say that the valuation changes did not create challenges, and the Bill is designed to make a positive difference to some of the David and Goliath situations raised by my hon. Friend the Member for  Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). To help ensure that fair outcomes are reached, we are introducing changes to encourage more collaborative discussion. The alternative dispute resolution provision will offer a particularly useful means of tackling situations involving either unreasonably low offers or unrealistically high payments. I am none the less happy to continue this discussion as the Bill progresses through the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West suggested that the Government are on the side of rapacious telecoms operators over landlords. I wish to assure him that that is not the case. We are getting good digital infrastructure to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. I challenge the idea raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that the telecoms operators are making a quick buck out of the networks they build. These are long-term investments, and the Government are pushing them very hard to deliver more, including by stripping high-risk vendors from their networks and rolling out infrastructure to communities that are not within easy reach.
I dare to suggest that some of the rarer and more emotive cases about community organisations receiving reduced rents are being used by certain lobbyists, some of whom are former Labour MPs, to obscure a larger, pretty hard-nosed commercial interest from companies that have bought up large numbers of telecoms sites and are concerned about receiving a lower return on their investment. Some of the same interest groups that oppose rent changes have written to me to express their support for better connectivity in rural areas. We should therefore not pretend that better connectivity does not rely on better access to sites and more realistic pricing for network operators who wish to deploy their services. Some hon. Members have pushed for the Bill to go further, particularly in relation to renewals and operator rights. Our policy aims align with that; we just need to make sure that the legislation is working as we hope. If amendments are required in Committee, we will actively consider them.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) mentioned the recent report by the Public Accounts Committee on gigabit roll-out.
I thank the PAC for its detailed work. It expressed concerns about the absence of legislation, but here is the legislation, which the Secretary of State and I have championed since our arrival in the Department, building on the fantastic work of my predecessor. We have also launched a series of procurements in the hardest-to-reach areas and Building Digital UK will soon be established as an executive agency to drive that work. I am glad that the impact is already being seen in areas such as Eddisbury.
On the product security part of the Bill, I welcome the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe and I encourage her to engage in the new national cyber strategy, because we would benefit from some of her points. The hon. Member for Manchester Central expressed concerns about whether we are taking future technological developments into account. There are a number of secondary provisions in the legislation. Technologies are changing all the time and it is important that the legislation can change with it.
Finally, the Bill is not a silver bullet to address all the cyber challenges that we face. It is an important tool in our arsenal. The UK has established global leadership  in the area and we are the first to develop domestic legislation that creates cyber-security requirements for consumer connectable products. The Bill will allow us to protect people across the UK, even as the world changes around us, and to keep pace with technology as it transforms our everyday lives. Combined with the measures on telecoms infrastructure, it will do a huge amount in the coming years to benefit our constituents and society at large.
I am sure that we can continue to work together to bring this important piece of legislation into law as soon as possible. We care passionately about connectivity for every community in our country and I am sure that the same spirit will continue as the Bill makes it passage through the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29 March 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

PRODUCT SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, under the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019, Ian Levy having resigned as a Parliamentary member of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, Robin Millar be appointed to the Body in his place.—(Jacob Rees-Mogg.)

Mark Tami: I am sure that the Leader of the House has other things on his mind at the moment, but as a north Wales MP, I welcome the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) to the board. I am sure that he will play an important role.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thought it was better if I replied to the debate rather than speaking at length beforehand, but I promise that I will not detain the House long. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 established a sponsor body that has overall responsibility for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster and acts as a single client on behalf of both Houses. The body is comprised of parliamentarians and external members, including the chairman. The intention is to ensure the right balance between cross-party and cross-House parliamentary support for the works and the appropriate professionalism and expertise.
As required under the terms of the Act, the motion before the House today seeks to appoint a Member of this House to the board of the sponsor body. The vacancy arose from the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) to his position as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Cabinet Office. I thank him very much for his excellent work on the sponsor body. He worked exceptionally hard.
It is with equal pleasure that I propose, with the support, I hope, of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) who, although only recently elected to the House, will provide valuable insight and perspective to the sponsor body. We know that the work is important and that this House needs it, so I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) (No. 2) Order 2021, dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 December 2021, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Trade Unions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Trade Union (Levy Payable to the Certification Officer) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 14 December 2021, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 176.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)).
That the draft Trade Union (Power of the Certification Officer to Impose Financial Penalties) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 14 December 2021, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 182.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Chris Elmore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you or Mr Speaker could clarify whether he has received notification from the Prime Minister of when the Gray report will be published and whether we should expect a statement from the Prime Minister either this afternoon or tomorrow.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me notice of it. I have had no notice of a request for a statement. As Mr Speaker said earlier, he is insistent that important announcements are made first to this House. I know he will do everything he can to facilitate that, but, as I say, to date there has been no such request for a statement.

Peter Bone: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If we move to the Adjournment debate, which could of course go on for many hours and probably will, am I right in thinking that it would be impossible to have a statement tonight?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I understand it, if a request comes during the debate, it may be possible to suspend   the House and take a statement, but once the question has been put and the House is adjourned, it is not possible to have a statement tonight. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, at the end of the debate, the question is put about the House adjourning and that is the final decision on when it is adjourned.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Since we are doing hypotheticals, I wonder if we could elaborate a bit more. Obviously, we would all prefer a proper process where the Gray report is published in full and given to the public as soon as possible after the Prime Minister receives it. I think the House would also prefer an opportunity to be able to question the Prime Minister on it, and the Prime Minister himself has very generously said that he would come to the House, but we do need a decent amount of time between publication and the House being able to consider it. I just wonder what your thoughts are, Madam Deputy Speaker. It looks as if tomorrow may be difficult for us to have a statement. It is theoretically possible that we could have a statement on Friday, but would that not be rather inappropriate considering that the vast majority of Members do not anticipate being here on a Friday because they have constituency business?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I say, we have received no indication that a statement is to be made. My instinct would be that Mr Speaker would want any statements to be at a time when those Members who are interested in the statement were able to be here and participate. I think it is probably best if I just leave it at that.

Planning Permissions and Unauthorised Developments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

Gareth Bacon: Speculation about how long I might speak for is rife in the Tea Room. I have been informed by the Government Whips Office that I could take almost three hours with my speech. Tempting though that is, I reassure the House that I will not detain it for as long as that—although I acknowledge that that is a shame.
This debate is a follow-up to the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced to the House last autumn, which sought to make unauthorised development an offence and to prohibit retrospective planning applications. Sadly, there was insufficient parliamentary time for the Bill to proceed, but the problems with planning enforcements remain.
What is the problem? Rogue developers regularly exploit loopholes in our planning system to build unauthorised developments without planning permission. Sadly, they are getting away with it. Under the current planning rules, development without permission is generally not a criminal offence, whereas failing to comply with enforcement action is.
Local authorities have a range of enforcement powers in their arsenals. Enforcement notices can be issued and, at the extreme end, require demolition and restoration. If they are upheld, there can be a fine of up to £20,000 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Other measures, such as contravention or stop notices, can be used depending on the circumstances.
Elements of the Localism Act 2011 made changes to the planning system, notably by removing an applicant’s right to use two separate defences in a single case. In 2015, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), outlined a policy to make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration for all applications, including retrospective ones.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill proposes a new offence for anyone who resides, or intends to reside, on land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, damage. The proposals are welcome, but the enforcement action I have outlined comes at a high cost to local authorities. It can take years to restore some sites because of the lengthy appeal processes involved. In any event, many rogue developers are eventually granted retrospective planning permission.
The planning portal goes as far as to state that in respect of breaches, local authorities
“often permit a retrospective application where planning permission has not been sought.”
Even when local authorities do not, the unauthorised development is often at such an advanced stage that the site is never fully restored. When such unauthorised developments have taken place on green-belt land or open land, they can lead to significant and permanent damage to areas that our planning system is supposed to protect.
That means a developer could show absolutely no regard for the legal process yet ultimately still be rewarded.

Bob Stewart: I did not intend to intervene but thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for allowing me to do so. Not just developers but private individuals take liberties in this matter, certainly in my constituency of Beckenham.

Gareth Bacon: My right hon. and gallant Friend is, of course, completely correct.
The consequence of the situation I have described is that many rogue developers bypass our planning system, gambling that enforcement action against them will be too slow and that, once built, their unauthorised development will be approved regardless. This is infuriating for the local residents who have to live alongside the developments. It is also frustrating for those who have played by the rules and sought planning permission themselves only to see others bypass the process.

Jonathan Gullis: My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, Staffordshire Waste Recycling Centre now has to apply for retrospective planning permission at its McGuinness scrap yard site, where the company is digging up an old landfill site, causing a terrible stink across the north Staffordshire area. Nearby, people are suffering because of Walley’s Quarry in the neighbouring constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Does my hon. Friend agree that not just certain developers but companies are taking liberties and creating distress for the surrounding residents?

Gareth Bacon: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the sort of abuse of the system that I ask the Government to address. Such abuses have a material and long-lasting impact on local people. When people are seen to get away with it, that just encourages more of the same.

Chris Grayling: I might, if my hon. Friend will allow me, seek to catch the Chair’s eye momentarily after his remarks. As he moves forward with this and as he, I hope, encourages the Government to take up his proposals, could he ensure that they include commercial operations? I have experience in my constituency; it is not just residential developers doing this, but commercial developers and businesses. I echo the points that have been made, but that must be a part of what he does.

Gareth Bacon: I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention and I agree entirely. The point is very well made and I can see the Minister on the Treasury Bench paying close attention. It is a subject that he and I have discussed on many occasions, and I look forward to hearing what he says in a moment.
The impact of all of this goes beyond local areas, as local authorities that pursue enforcement action against rogue developers have to spend significant sums of taxpayers’ cash on legal battles. When I introduced my Bill back in the autumn, I referred at length to a case in my constituency as an example of what can occur. That case is now subject to consideration by the courts, so I will not go into that detail again, save to make the observation that it has taken more than a year to get to  this point and the end is still not in sight. However, it does not impact just my constituency—it is a national problem. Such incidents, as I have heard from my hon. Friends, are widespread.
In another example, in 2018, an unauthorised development was set up around Chelmsford on a Saturday morning, meaning that the planning enforcement team were able to visit the site only on the following Monday, by which time caravans, a digger and lorries carrying materials had all been brought on to the site in a pre-planned and co-ordinated attempt to build as much as possible so that it would become unviable for the council to dismantle the works. Neither of those incidents are easily resolvable. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has spoken in this House about procedural battles on development sites in Guildford and Leatherhead that have lasted between 14 and 18 years. Green belt land has been acquired and built over without planning permission in both locations.
So what solutions might there be? When I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, I stated that I believed that the solution lay in legislative change to move unauthorised developments without permission from being a civil offence to being a criminal offence. I made the argument that that would prevent rogue developers from appealing enforcement action and block retrospective planning permission automatically. I stated that any change should not aim to remove certain permitted development rights for private households. Nor should it attempt to single out encampments by certain specific communities. Any fair planning system should recognise that developments could unintentionally stray from the approved plans when constructed. In order to avoid the danger of people who have inadvertently breached planning regulations being criminalised, for example, in cases where an extension is slightly too large or where someone implemented something erroneously, believing that they had permitted development rights, the Bill I drafted distinguished between more minor, accidental planning permission breaches, and egregious breaches where someone repeatedly attempted to bypass the planning system, or where the breach occurred on protected land such as the green belt. In such instances, the rules need to be flexible enough to consider the circumstances of the breach. However, I believe this should be balanced against the need to ensure the system is strong enough to close the loophole that rogue developers are currently exploiting.
There are a range of potential solutions. As I have stated, my solution was to change the law to make unauthorised development a criminal offence. An alternative might be to reform the pre-existing enforcement provisions, for example, by rapidly speeding up the process by which planning enforcement can take place, and perhaps vastly increasing the level of fines applicable and limiting the timescales and grounds for appeal.
Whatever solution we opt for, the case for change is substantial. I have seen at first hand local authorities’ difficulties in deterring and stopping rogue developers from building without permission. I have seen the damage that that can cause. I have witnessed the frustration of local residents who find their local areas threatened and I have heard from local councillors and their officers  about the long drawn-out, inefficient and very expensive processes they are obliged to follow in attempting to deal with the problem.
We can strengthen councils’ ability to act, protect the green belt and ensure that communities get their say on local developments by changing the law. When the planning Bill comes to the House, it will be a golden opportunity to take steps to protect local residents, stamp out these abuses of the planning process and right a very clear wrong. I urge the Government to pay heed to the issue. I very much look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Chris Grayling: I am very grateful to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this slightly extended Adjournment debate. I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) that it will be a brief one.
I have a dreadful situation in my constituency. Over the past 12 months, a local chalk pit on green-belt land, which has historically been a combination of an overflow for the local car dealers and a transfer site for local skip dealers, has been transformed by one operator—a local firm, NJB Recycling—into a full recycling centre without planning consent. It is now applying retrospectively for planning consent; I have opposed the application and hope that it will be turned down.
The experience of the past 12 months has highlighted an issue to which I hope the Minister will give some thought in discussion with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Not only is there an unlawful use of the site, and not only is the operator applying for retrospective consent—I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that someone should not be allowed to set up a commercial operation without permission and get away with it—but the agencies involved do not have the powers to deal with a contravention of planning consent.
The facility is regulated by the Environment Agency, whose performance over the past 12 months has, I have to say, been lamentable. The site is causing massive noise nuisance to local residents; it is a few yards away from houses that are now being subjected to substantial noise all day long. We have had massive dust problems, and there have been huge traffic problems with the dramatic expansion in the use of the site. It is a shocking example of something that simply should not be able to happen.
Not only has the performance by the Environment Agency’s team been lamentable, but it has not used the powers that it has to try to restrain things. Frankly, it has not followed its own assessment of the scale of the problem: it carried out an independent assessment, found out that the operator was in breach and then failed to act on that breach. It has said all along that it cannot act to close down, or withdraw a permit from, an operator that is operating a site unlawfully, even though the operator has changed the nature of its work and is now operating in a way that is unlawful in planning terms.
We need a joined-up approach to regulation. We should not have a situation in which the planning authority receives a retrospective application for an unlawful use of a site, but the regulations that apply to  the site’s use under the auspices of the Environment Agency do not permit the Environment Agency to say “stop.” My message to the Minister, to whom I am happy to speak in more detail as he prepares the planning Bill, is that two agencies should not have different enforcement powers and different abilities to intervene in a case of unlawful use and a retrospective planning application.
I would like the whole thing to be stopped. I would like all the agencies involved to act in unison and say, “You ain’t got permission to use the site in this way. It’s against planning law, you don’t have consent, you’re applying retrospectively—you should not be doing what you’re doing.” Everyone should have the power to step in and say, “You must stop.” I am happy to share more detail with the Minister; I have been talking to DEFRA Ministers as well.
I want a joined-up approach so that all the agencies have the same power to intervene when a site is being used unlawfully and when a retrospective application is made. Actually, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington that a retrospective planning application simply should not be allowed anyway, but at the moment we have a disjointed situation among the different agencies. I encourage the Minister to work with me to address it in legislation.

Christopher Pincher: It is a great pleasure to speak in this important Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on raising an important issue on behalf of his and all our constituents, as well as our colleagues and partners in local government.
If we want our country to have a planning system that is prepared for the challenges of the future, we need to keep the conversation going about how the system will work in practice. I admire my hon. Friend’s personal commitment to the issue. If I may say so, there is certainly nothing woke about this bloke, because last year he proposed several interesting changes to the enforcement regime in the private Member’s Bill to which he alluded. We have had some constructive conversations about those changes, and I look forward to further such conversations to determine what we can take forward together. This matter may not generate as huge a number of column inches as other touchstone issues of our day, but I assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government share his interest in and commitment to improving planning enforcement in this country.
I also share the interest shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I am concerned by the ongoing issue he faces. He will appreciate that I should not say too much more about it because of my quasi-judicial role, but I am certainly happy to discuss his worries about inter-departmental connectivity—let us call it that—and how agencies work together to effect appropriate planning decisions. He will know that we propose to bring forward planning reform, and I will certainly talk to my colleagues at DEFRA and engage him in those conversations. He is a distinguished Member of this House with a distinguished ministerial career, and in his 21 years here he has been a doughty campaigner on his constituents’ behalf. He has demonstrated that again this afternoon.
It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of people across the country will need to engage with our planning system only when they are looking for planning permission prior to any works they may want done. While a small number of works will inevitably slip through the net, with people accidentally undertaking work without realising it requires planning permission—most people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington rightly said, want to play by the rules—some will try to bend the rules to their will by gambling that planning permission will be granted retrospectively.
That gamble should never be allowed to pay off. It shows contempt for the rules that hold the system together, and it is unacceptable to every person who approaches the planning regime with good faith. When the system is gamed, local authorities have an array of powers—my hon. Friend alluded to some of them—in their enforcement arsenal, including strong financial penalties for non-compliance. Councils can step in to suspend works on a site so that proper investigation can take place. Again, if an individual or companies try to subvert that process, they can find themselves facing an unlimited fine for non-compliance.

Bob Stewart: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), a close constituency neighbour, he and I both have a problem, because people gamble with the weekend. We must give local authorities the power to take immediate action when people start their work, as my hon. Friend said, on a Friday evening or Saturday morning and then work through the weekend before anyone can actually take enforcement action. Such action should be almost immediate, and the police should be given the power to evict people before they start building too much.

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend makes a practical point, and I will come on to say something about the support we want to give local authorities so that they are better able to enforce the rules. It is all very well regulating, but regulations are only as good as the enforcement capability of those charges with that responsibility—[Interruption.] I note, as I look to my right, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) appears to be about to get to his feet, so I shall pre-empt him by sitting down.

Jonathan Gullis: I thank my right hon. Friend. He will know that, when it comes to giving local authorities more powers, it is about tackling not just retrospective planning, but those who own buildings, especially heritage buildings, that they are allowing to fall into a state of disrepair by being either a rogue landowner or an absentee property owner. I have introduced the Planning (Proper Maintenance of Land) Bill—not a very sexy title, I accept—which seeks to increase the fines in section 216 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I have obviously been lobbying the Minister relentlessly, and I could not waste this opportunity to ask him to confirm at the Dispatch Box that, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), my ten-minute rule Bill is certainly being considered as part of the planning reforms.

Christopher Pincher: I am never knowingly under-lobbied by my hon. Friend, and I salute not only his indefatigability in campaigning on this issue, but the elasticity with which he has shoehorned it into this particular debate.  Let me assure him that the matter he raises is important, and we do want to address his concerns effectively when we bring forward our planning reform. I am sure we will be talking further with him about those matters.
I have said that councils can step in to suspend works and enforcement notices can be served, but if a council needs to go nuclear, it can apply for a planning injunction via a court order that would restrain any actual or expected breach of planning controls. The outcome of this sort of process can lead to jail time, assets being seized and fines being handed down.

Gareth Bacon: The Minister is completely correct in what he has just outlined. The problem, however, is that this all takes time. It takes time to get a court appearance and it takes time for the injunction to be issued. Injunctions can very often be ignored, and further legal action has to take place to issue stop notices or other such action. All the while, development continues and the landscape continues to get scarred, local residents continue to get very anxious, and more time and money is being spent by the council. Would the Minister acknowledge that this is in fact part of the problem, and would he concede that this could be looked at in future, potentially as part of the planning Bill when it comes to the House?

Christopher Pincher: I appreciate and recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. We do want to ensure that the innocent are not caught up in a regime that pursues the guilty, but we also want to ensure that the system is more speedy and has much greater deterrent effects on those who attempt to gamble with the law, those who attempt to bend it and, indeed, those who choose to break it.
We all recognise that the reason why we need the important debate my hon. Friend has brought to the House today is that we believe—we genuinely believe—that there is more that we can do, and there is more that we shall do. As everyone in the House will appreciate, we are committed to improving our planning system and making it one that delivers better outcomes for people in all parts of the country. It is going to be the bedrock of one of our principal missions, which is to level up the United Kingdom and to help revive and regenerate those areas that have long felt forgotten by politicians of all stripes in Westminster. In our constituencies, however affluent they may be on the face of it, we all have areas of our constituency where there is deprivation and where residents feel left behind, and we have to fix that.
When it comes to pulling the handbrake on unauthorised developments in their areas, we want to make it even easier for local planning authorities to step in and make sure that retrospective planning permission is not exploited by those bent on gaming the system. Let me be clear: retrospective applications are only for individuals or businesses that have made a genuine mistake. As my hon. Friend alluded to, the enforcement process needs to work better. We make that happen by closing loopholes, and strengthening the existing powers and penalties at our disposal.
As we modernise our planning system in England, we plan to engage with communities and key stakeholders throughout the planning process. Our ambition is to ensure that the outdated system, which is essentially a  relic of the post-war period, is now made fit for the 21st century, with proper digitisation of applications so that residents can easily see the proposed development in their area at the touch of their smartphone screen. As my hon. Friend and others have said, we have all seen and read about egregious examples of people bending the rules on retrospective planning applications. My hon. Friend mentioned the situation of the caravan park in Chelmsford, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned the situation faced by his constituents in Epsom. We see such challenges from individuals and commercial organisations up and down the country.
The simple idea behind retrospective applications is that they give people who have failed to seek planning permission prior to building a structure a fair chance to get the necessary approvals.

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend made the important point that a retrospective application should only be for somebody who has made a genuine mistake. May I press him a little bit on that? Should a local authority—and, crucially, the inspectorate—disallow a retrospective application that is clearly not based on a genuine mistake?

Christopher Pincher: Essentially, it should, but of course there are legal interpretations that need to be considered. Therefore, we need to ensure that any rule changes that we make are right, that they do not allow the new system to be gamed and therefore brought into disrepute, and that they do not lead to unintended and unfair consequences for, shall we say, the innocent.
Over the years, the system has been deliberately gamed by cowboy builders creating large structures or even whole developments before trying their luck with the local council to see whether they can get retrospective planning permission. There is one infamous case in Bedfordshire, which saw a local business owner who was originally granted permission to make a modest improvement to his 1960s bungalow end up building a three-storey mega-mansion, complete with a turret and sweeping balconies. That is just not right; it is the sort of egregious development that should not be allowed.
In other cases, we have heard of, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has said, lorries and building equipment arriving on site in the dead of night or at the weekend, and people laying internal roads and hardstanding without planning permission. Retrospective planning permission is then sought soon afterwards, and wrongly so. Clamping down on such flagrant planning violations and abuses of the system is going to be a key focus of my Department. It is one of the reasons why we have made intentional unauthorised development a material planning consideration, meaning that local authorities can factor in intent behind the unauthorised development when considering a retrospective application. In other words, it is not enough for builders to plead ignorance when it is plain for all—not least the planning authority—to see that they were well aware that their structure needed planning permission right from the outset.
Legislation also states that retrospective applications must be assessed in the same way as standard planning applications, so that permission cannot be granted retrospectively if there was little or no prospect of it being approved in the first place.
People making small improvements to their own home or garden are human, like all of us. Our constituents might not always think that we are human, but, like them, we are, and we know that genuine mistakes can be made. They will happen, so it would be unfair, where someone built their rear extension a foot too high, for example, or erected a fence in the wrong place, to take a sledgehammer to that work when retrospective planning permission would do. We have to be fair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said in his remarks.
With that principle in mind, while also accounting for the natural frustration that people and communities can feel about unauthorised development, criminalisation for infringements that fall into the minor or unwitting camp would be disproportionate. That is why we need to make sure that any changes we make are right and do not lead to unintended and unfair consequences.
As the House will know, we are considering a whole suite of possible planning reforms. I reassure my hon. Friend that that includes consideration of whether the current scope of offences is fit for purpose. He mentioned some matters, including using such terms as “egregious” in the law. We would need to look closely at that to ensure that there is a fair and proper legal interpretation of that word. He mentioned the greater use of fines, and we will certainly look at that possibility. The fundamental must be that the system deters retrospective planning applications and also deters the activity that results in those retrospective applications—the building in the first place.
We recognise that these reforms will only be worth making if our local authorities and the wider planning sector have the right tools to implement them and are able to give our planning enforcement regime proper teeth. To that end, an additional £65 million was made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Budget last year. That will help build the skills and capability that we need at the local level to translate our words into deeds on the ground.
As we look beyond the here and now, our commitment in the long term is to digitisation. Digitisation will mean that local authorities and their planning officers have  much more space and much more time to focus on the things that really matter, rather than the administrative bumf that goes along with the present planning system. By digitising the system, we can make it more effective, and we can also create the headroom for planning officers and other officials to be more effective in their own work.
I will say a few brief words on appeals, which I know are a bugbear for many communities that find themselves in protracted and exhausting disputes. We certainly want them speeded up. It is absolutely right that everyone should be able to make their case and to have that case heard. Our priority is to accelerate that process by closing loopholes through future planning reforms. We are undoubtedly making progress in that direction. In the 18-month stretch from March 2020—the height of the covid pandemic—the Planning Inspectorate issued some 3,300 appeal decisions on enforcement cases. However, as I set out, there is more to be done to improve how the fundamentals of our appeals process work, and that has to start with removing the incentive for those who set out deliberately to abuse the system to try to delay the appeals process. I will say more about that as we advance our planning reforms, and I am happy to discuss it further with my hon. Friend and other Members to ensure that we get this aspect of our reforms right.
I thank my hon. Friend for championing this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed. The concerns raised echo through local authorities around the country, and I assure the House that they echo through my Department. They will have been heard loudly and clearly, and we are determined to act on them. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House in the months to come to ensure that we get our planning reforms ready, right and on the statute book so that all our constituents are protected.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.